i 



PROCEEDINGS 



OF THE 



Presbytery of Philadelphia 



IN THE CASE OF 



ON HIS 



APPEAL FROM THE DECISION 



Second Presbyterian Church, 

IN PHILADELPHIA. 

Taken down in Short-hand by Thomas Lloyd, esq. 

PHILADELPHIA: 

PUBLISHED BY JONATHAN POUNDER, NO. 134, NORTH 
FOURTH-STREET. 



OF THE 



SESSION 



OF THE 




WW 



Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to wit: 
«*i=m*>!°w** BE * T REMEMBERED, that on the fourteenth day 
fTT^C^lf of June, in the forty -fourth year of the independence 
of the United States of America, A.D 1820, Jonathan 
*=m=****=m« Pounder of the said district, hath deposited in this office 

the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as proprietor, in 

the words following, to wit: 

u Proceedings of the Presbytery of Philadelphia in the case of 
" Samuel Wentz, on his Appeal from the Decision of the Ses- 
sion of the Second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Taken 
" down in short hand by Thomas Lloyd, esq." 

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States : en- 
titled, " An act for the encouragement of lea rning, by securing the 
copies of Maps, Charts and Books to the authors and proprietors of 
such, during the times therein mentioned:'* and also to the act, en- 
titled, ** An act supplementary to the act, entitled an act for the en - 
couragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts 
and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the 
times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof to the 
arts of designing, engraving and etching historical and other prints." 

D. CALDWELL, 
Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



Had the person accused of the charges on which 
the following trial is predicated, been treated in the 
course of the investigation of his conduct, with that 
fairness and candour to which every person is enti- 
tled, until proved guilty, he would have been the last 
to circulate the report of that body, which was con- 
stituted at a tribunal to sit in judgment on him; had 
any evidence^ even circumstantial, been found on 
which to hang the remotest proof of guilt, he would 
never have impeached the judgment or appealed 
from the decision of a court, to which, until then, 
he had never imputed other than the purest motives, 
though conscious himself of the most perfect inno- 
cence in thought and word of the crimes charged 
upon him by his accusers. But the whole course of 
proceedings in this unhappy affair, both anterior 
and subsequently to the trial by the session, has been 
marked with a degree of personal animosity and bit- 
ter persecution, which may challenge a parallel in the 
proceedings of any civil or ecclesiastical court ever 
instituted. In vain was it urged upon the unfeeling- 
prosecutors, that the rod of their vengeance reached 



4 



ever the back of their devoted vietim, and extended 
to the feelings and happiness of a dependent wife and 
numerous offspring. In vain was it asked of the base 
circulators of the unfounded charge, doth our law 
condemn any man unheard? The flood gates of slan- 
der and persecution were open, and woe to the being 
who chanced to be in its way, and dared to arrest its 
progress. Every instance of propagating the report 
was backed with denunciation, till to accuse and con- 
demn seemed the work of a single breath. 

While this work of malignity was going forward, 
the unhappy subject of malice was the last to be in- 
formed of the freedom which was taken with his cha- 
racter, by men who should rather be the guardians 
than defamers of a brother's good name. The re- 
ports having come to his ears, he demanded an inves- 
tigation of character before that church of which he 
had until then stood an unimpeached member. This 
request was granted, or perhaps determined on before 
asked. Let it not be supposed, by those who are 
unacquainted with the nature of such trials, that it 
was possible, by any proper course of inquiry, to 
prove Mr. Wentz guilty of the charges alledged 
against him; in point of law, and indeed, to any can- 
did mind, the thing was impossible. The unhappy 
young woman, of whose child it was attempted to 
prove that Mr. Wentz was the father, had soon after 
its birth, made oath before an alderman, to the true 
father, and confirmed that oath by frequent assertions 
and allegations to the same effect. Against Mr. 
Wentz's character, no other charge than this 



5 



had ever been brought to the church; surely then it 
was the duty of those who have been so active in this 
unpleasant business, to trace these reports to their 
origin, before they united themselves to the calum- 
niators. It is believed in charity to those who have 
been so active against Mr. Wentz, that had they 
known the source of the reports which they cherish- 
ed, and had only examined into the motives which 
induced their fabrications, they would never have 
disgraced themselves and their connexion by being 
concerned with such despicable witnesses, in the 
prosecution of a trial which having once provoked 
they felt bound to continue. 

When Mr. Wentz heard the reports which were 
in circulation against him, he took the earliest, and, 
as it might be supposed, the only certain means of 
clearing himself from the imputation which these 
charges brought upon him. He took two disinterest- 
ed persons with him to interrogate Mary Albertson as 
to the charges, and to obtain such information of the 
circumstance as she might think proper to reveal. 
She solemnly disavowed any connexion with Mr. 
Wentz, which had the least relation to criminality, 
and renewed her assertions that Isaac Burdock was 
the father of her child — these assertions under the 
solemnity of an oath were made when her child was 
only four days old; a time when the delicacy and 
danger of her situation would make any woman 
shrink from the temerity of perjury. The following 
certificate was at that time signed by Mary Albertson, 

and affirmed to in presence of Peter Christian, esq*, 
a 2 



Philadelphia, September 18M, 1819. 
Whereas certain malicious, unjust, and false charges have 
been circulated, injurious to the character of Mr. Samuel 
Wentz, stating him to have had improper connexion with me, 
and that he is the father of my infant, now of four days of age. 
This is solemnly to certify, that the said charges are totally un- 
founded, and no truth in the same. The said Samuel Wentz 
being totally innocent of any such charges, as regards me. 

MARY ALBERTSON. 

Affirmed before me this 20th ) 
day of September, 1819. \ 

PETER CHRISTIAN, Alderman. 

This is to certify, that we the subscribers were present at 
the above declaration and signature of Mary Albertson; the 
contents were declared by her in our presence, and hearing to 
be strictly true. 

JOHN GREEN, 
JOHN H. GARTLEY, 
Witness present to the above transaction, 
MARIA KOCHLER. 

The following was taken a few weeks subsequent 
to the other; in presence of the same magistrate: 

City of Philadelphia, ss. 

The examination of Mary Albertson of said city, single 
woman, taken upon her solemn affirmation before me, Peter 
Christian, one of the Aldermen of said city, the 1 1th day of 
October, A. D. 1819, who saith that on the 14th day of Sep- 
tember last past, she was delivered of a female bastard child, 
and that Isaac Burdock of the city of New York is the father 
of said child. 

(Signed) MARY ALBERTSON. 

Taken and subscribed before me ) 
the day and year aforesaid. £ 

PETER CHRISTIAN, Alderman. 
[A true copy.] 

PETER CHRISTIAN 



7 



Prepared with these unanswerable proofs of inno- 
cence, it may be supposed that Mr. Wentz waited 
upon his pastor with much confidence, and in the 
pleasing anticipation of settling this unhappy affair; 
but to his astonishment he found that one of his ac- 
cusers, fearful of the success of Mr. Wentz's exer- 
tion to prove his innocence, had previously called on 
the pastor, and in order to prejudice his mind, had 
told him the name of Peter Christian as alderman, 
was not really signed to the certificate; this can 
scarcely be imputed to want of information, as he 
must have seen the certificate, or else it would 
seem that the impudence of this pimp was likely to 
be eclipsed by his ignorance. 

As it was not difficult to prove the signature of 
Mr. Christian, it may be supposed that not much 
injury could arise from the officious meddling of the 
misinformed it however served to indicate in pretty 
plain terms the length the prosecutors and session 
were prepared to go, in order to effect this plan of 
destroying the character and standing of their vic- 
tim. Mr. Wentz however amidst this combination 
of accusers and judges, urged an examination of his 
conduct, he sought for interviews with his prosecu- 
tors, with as much avidity as they avoided them. 
Of this fact the following letter will be ample proof* 

Philadelphia, September 23d, 1819. 

Mr. Robert Murphey, 

Sir, — It is with extreme regret we now address you, nor 
would it be done but at the special request of our worthy Pas- 
tor wishing-us to have an interview, this you have been already 
requested and invited to, and as you well know promised om 



8 



minister in company with Mr. Daniel Smith to cali upon us, 
which promise neither of you have as yet fulfilled. The object 
of the present is again to request you to call on us as soon as 
possible, and if you can, bring- your friend Mr. Smith with you: 
this you certainly can effect in much less time than was em- 
ployed in waiting- upon and troubling- our clergyman with the 
recital of the base, unfounded, malicious, and infamous false- 
hood, which you retailed to him. We should not perhaps 
have noticed this strang-e unbrotherly conduct so much, were 
it not that two of our respectable friends and neig-hbours, you, 
by certain inuendoes, indirectly charg-ed with assisting- in the 
fabrication of falshood most foul, that would if so, sink them 
and one of us to the disgusting level of the base obnoxious for- 
ger; but we will let this rest, as their characters are beyond 
the reach of such malevolent wicked conduct. We shall now 
take leave for the present, (after again pressing an immediate 
interview, or as soon as you can possibly call, not forgetting 
most cordially to invite the attendance of your friend Smith,) 
with merely recommending to your perusal (as you make a 
profession of the christian character, and enjoy church mem- 
bership, however, your late conduct in this business may have 
been at variance with the same,) the sacred oracles of God, 
especially the 18th chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, 15th, 
16th, and 17th verses; Romans, 12th chapter, 9th, and 10th 
verses; 1st Epistle of Peter, 3d chapter, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 
and 12th verses; 1st Epistle of St. John, 4th chapter, 20th and 
21st verses, and then seriously consider whether it was proper 
to act the part you have to an innocent, injured and falsely vili- 
fied man, much less to a brother of the same household of faith: 
expecting an early interview with you. So much from us. 

SAMUEL WENTZ, 
SARAH WENTZ. 

P. S. As the conduct of your friend Mr. Smith has been simi- 
lar to your own in this business, there will be no impropriety in 
your showing him this letter. 

After having treated Mr. Wentz in the most un- 
feeling manner, before the opening of the session, 
^that body, with its reverend moderator, seemed to 



9 



think no indignity too base to pour out upon their vic- 
tim. Continual importunities were urged for him to 
confess himself guilty, after having repeatedly and so- 
lemnly professed innocence; and when fully arraigned, 
he was insulted with a form of a tribunal for trial and 
denunciation, some specified charges of guilt — but 
no accuser. He was desired to plead guilty to the 
charges of crimes which could not be proved, and of 
which they appeared determined he should not es- 
tablish his innocence. He was denyed the refuge 
which civil law affords to the accused in the absence 
of the proof of any guilt, and debarred the privilege 
which christian charity gives to them, of whom the 
whole tenour of their lives attest their innocence. 

If the members of the session had determined that 
Mr. Wentz's trial should really be conducted before 
them with justice, and their judgments pronounced 
on the merits of the case, why did they, before the 
trial, seek every opportuninity to prejudice christians 
against him, by giving the most unnecessary publi- 
city to the charges against him, heightened by all 
that malevolence and prejudice could impart? 

When a certain member of the church had car- 
ried the charge to the pastor, and been commissioned 
with another brother to wait on the accused, why did 
he, Jonah-like, shrink from the exercise of his com- 
mission? 

If the session was as willing to admit the inno- 
cence of the accused, as it was anxious to establish 
his guilt, why was this certain member, before per- 
forming his errand, suffered to retail the infamous 



10 



scandal of the charge, publicly before members of 
the Evangelical Society, and the story heightened by 
all the incidental decorations for which the narratives 
of this person are particularly remarkable? and even 
this opportunity was not enough for this loquacious 
brother— Before waiting on Mr. Wentz he found 
another chance of exercising his narrative talents at 
the Asylum. On this occasion, however, it seems that 
the scanty cloak of religion which had ever been too 
narrow to hide his deformities, was completely laid 
aside, and he stood forth confessedly the public, med- 
ling and officious slanderer of a brother's character 

However deformed may be the human heart, or 
however degraded may become the character from 
habitual indulgence of any darling sinful propensity, 
still it has been found by the experienced in the 
human heart, that no person sets about an action 
without finding some reason for it, which, if it do 
not satisfy any other person, will at least plead some 
alleviation to himself. Now there appears to be no 
unction which this babbling brother could have laid 
to his heart, but that having once accused Mr. 
Wentz, and repeatedly pledged his own veracity for 
the guilt of the accused, he felt himself called upon 
to establish the charge by every means which malice 
could invent or detraction circulate: and these means 
appear to have been quite within the reach of this 
detractor, and his conscience not too delicate for hia 
using them. 

These interrogatives are predicated on fact, and 
the assertions are not to be denyed — who is there 



11 



then that cannot see that every means had been em- 
ployed to forestall the public opinion, and prejudice 
the christian mind against the accused, in order that 
no astonishment might be exdted by the conduct of 
the session, which no circumstance of the case nor 
any evidence offered could warrant, and which every 
individual composing that session had apparently de- 
termined on long before they entered into judgment. 

What must have been the feelings of a man, who 
could unblushingly ask a husband and father of a 
numerous family, to acknowledg himself guilty of a 
crime which would degrade him almost to the level 
of a brute, and this request made without even pro- 
viding for the truth of the confession, and required 
only that the session might be saved the formality of a 
trial, the mind of each member, as it would seem, 
being fully made up upon the subject? 

All that man could submit to was borne in the 
trial before the session; every contumely was heaped 
upon him that slander could utter; the public mind 
had been prejudiced by the circulation of reports, 
which it was never intended to prove, and personal 
disaffection blown into enmity by pretended injury 
to the cause of religion; this was borne with from a 
consciousness that the malice of designing hypocrites 
would be gratified by observing their intentions an- 
swered by any expressions of resentment or unchris- 
tian anger. 

But, when arraigned before a tribunal claiming to 
be qualified to sit in judgment on a fellow mortal, 
yet apparently ignorant of the first principles of right 



12 



by trial, and denying him the privilege to which 
every accused person has a right, that of knowing 
the accuser, some expressions of feeling or contempt 
may have escaped: " There is a spirit in the mind of 
man, and the inspiration of the most high, giveth it 
understanding" — there are bounds set beyond which 
it cannot pass, lower than which it cannot stoop with- 
out degrading the image of its maker so strongly 
marked upon the soul; and he must have been more 
or less than man, who could without reply have sub- 
mitted to the implied and absolute insults of this 
inflated tribunal. It was not enough that they had 
dragged before them their victim and heaped upon 
him charges which owed their publicity alone to the 
indefatigable malice of a few of their members. It 
was not enough that the peace of mind of an unoffen- 
ding individual had been underminded, that his 
character had been made the target for an habitual 
slanderer — but he must be denied the name of his 
accuser and insulted with the form of trial, by those 
who openly avowed that their opinions were already 
fixed upon the subject, and who absolutely had passed 
judgment and denounced vengeance upon their vic- 
tim weeks before they attempted the form of a trial. 

If the session felt it their duty to prosecute the 
case as if they were a court of law, and bound only 
to seek for redress against the defendant, why did 
they not weigh the evidence and let it pabs for its 
value in a court of law, and not admit as evidence 
the surmises and inferences of a few women, whose 
knowledge would hardly teach them the solemnity 



13 



of an oath, and who were influenced by a supposed 
injury from the defendant or a breach of etiquette 
on the part of his wife. 

But if the session felt other and more solemn 
duties imposed upon it, and found itself bound to re- 
claim rather than punish, to shield an offending 
brother from the censure of the world, rather than 
drag him forth to the scorn and contempt of man- 
kind, why did they not seek for, or even hear the 
the evidence which would clear the accused from 
their charges? why did they industriously strive to 
ellicit a confession from the unhappy cause of all the 
trouble? why did they refuse to hear any thing she 
would advance unless she first gratified their desire 
by declaring Mr. Wentz to be the father of her 
child. 

The session appears neither to have been influen- 
ced by the stern inflexible justice which characteri- 
ses a court of law, nor the mild constructions which 
should mingle with the decisions of an ecclesiastical 
court. The former supposes every person innocent 
until he is found guilty, and acts accordingly —the 
latter suffering long, and bearing long, seeks rather 
the honour of the church in the purity of its mem- 
bers than the exercise of penal prerogative in the 
destruction of a devoted individual. 

The conduct of the session in this case can only 
find its precedent in the archives of the inquisition; 
as in that, no accuser was brought to confront the 
accused— as in that, the character, the feeling and 
almost the life of an unoffending individual was 



14 



sacrificed to gratify and realize the unprincipled 
feeling and prophetic assertion of men, who were 
determined to condemn, and almost slept over evi- 
dence which was not in accordance with their views. 

But the inquisition, vile as it was, never suffered 
its members to blast the prospects and lacerate the 
feelings of those who were connected with their vic- 
tim, by the circulation of those reports which had 
placed him within their power. The head of the 
inquisitorial court, never, it is believed, descends 
from the dignity of a judge, to become himself the 
calumniator and insulter of his victim. He never 
so far loses sight of the professed sanctity of his call- 
ing as to vent the spleen of disappointment in the 
ebulition of rage, and in language that the fear of a 
superior tribunal alone, would teach him to retract 
in hours of cooler reflection. 

It is not necessary in this place to sum up the re- 
ports and surmises of the different witnesses for the 
prosecution. Mr. Bradford has exhibited their ter- 
giversations in his speech, and dealt with them with 
all the lenity of christian charity. There are, how- 
ever, some circumstances relating to one or two 
of the women who appeared as witnesses against 
Mr. Wentz, which demand an explanation that 
will undoubtedly exhibit some of the motives of their 
stories, 

Mr. Sloan and Eliza Albertson, were or had been 
residents in Robert Murphey's family. Mr. Mur- 
phey was one of the prosecutors in this case; they 
swore to what they could, and then the session 



15 



brought one to prove the other's character. If 
$liza Albertson had lived so long in Mr. Murphey's 
family, why did not Mr. and Mrs. Murphey appear, 
to attest to the correctness of her character; and if 
either of them had appeared, what is it likely would 
have been the answers to the questions which were 
put by Mr. Wentz to Mr. Sloan? for whatever infor- 
mation Mr. Wentz possessed was derived immedi- 
ately from Mr. Murphey, and no questions were 
asked which were not predicated on some report 
which Mr. Murphey had conveyed to Mr. Wentz. 

The testimony of Massey Evans is certainly en- 
titled to no credit, and the motives which induced 
her to such assertions are manifest from the confes- 
sions which she made to Mr. Hughes. This woman, 
so habituated to the business of slander, and so indis- 
criminate in the objects of abuse, had the impudence 
to confess unblushingly, that so great was her enmity 
to Mr. Wentz, that under any circumstances she 
could not refrain from her darling habit; her charac- 
ter for veracity is sufficiently established by the testi- 
mony of Mr. Hughes. This unfortunate witness 
drew upon her fertile imagination, for a story which 
challenges a parallel in the history of evidence, in 
the account which she gives of Mr. Wentz's conduct 
and conversation at the Garden- street house. She 
stood by as she asserts, and witnessed the grossness 
of Mr. W entz's conduct; she listened to the conver- 
sation that she asserts passed, but she says not a 
word about its effect on her. Had any such conver- 
sation taken place as she swears to, she must have 



16 



been dead to every feeling of decency, her mind 
must have been a very sink of impurity to suffer her 
to see and hear what she swears she did see and 
hear. This witness's testimony amounts to more 
than she intended, or the session required; such con- 
versation and conduct calls for the inquiry of the 
church; and no body of christians could have heard 
such a charge against one of its members, without 
either making an official inquiry into the facts, or 
declaring that they believed that the informer told a 
wilful falsehood, the latter must have been the con- 
clusion of the session, for no such inquiry was ever 
instituted nor any means taken to ascertain the truth 
of the evidence. The house in Garden-street is 
built as almost every other house is, which has two 
rooms on a floor, with an entry conveniently wide 
between each room, and the two upper rooms of this 
house were not within five feet of each other. 

Mr. Wentz did not shrink from an investigation 
of this subject; on the contrary he urged the session 
to it by every possible means; and the decision of the 
presbytery, which restored him to the church, render- 
ed this investigation an imperious duty of the session. 
The following letter will show that Mr. Wentz 
seized the first opportunity to solicit an inquiry. 

Philad. April 23d, 1820. 

Rev. Dr. Janeway, 

Sir, — Justice to myself and duty to my church, require that 
an investigation should take place, as regards my alledged 
conduct in the garret of the new house in Garden-street; this 
therefore, sir, is to request the session of our church to attend to 



17 



the same, as I will prove it an infamous falsehood. There 
would be no impropriety in the gentlemen visiting- the premi- 
ses and they will find no such door of communication as that 
named in the evidence. I remain &c. 

SAMUEL WENTZ. 

P. S. 1 wish the session to proceed in this business imme- 
diately. 

Eleanor Hagner is brought to establish the charge. 
The whole course of evidence has been hearsay, 
opinions, surmises, and conjectures; this child is 
brought up to add her sage conjectures to the rest, 
she roundly asserts that she had long suspected illi- 
cit connexion between the accused and Mary Al- 
bertson, and predicates her suspicions on her asser- 
tions that Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson were seen 
so frequently going out together, and leaves the ses- 
sion to draw similar conjectures from her attestations 
of the fact; but on being questioned by Mr. Wentz, 
she reluctantly acknowledged that Mr. Wentz's 
children were with them. What] is there a human 
being so depraved; is their a mind so debauched, as 
to admit the idea, for a moment, that a man would 
go to the work of adultery in the presence of his own 
children? The mind sickens at such a conclusion. 
The whole story of this girl is entirely contradicted 
by Mrs. Westcott; and the breath of suspicion has 
never dared to taint her name. As a convincing 
proof of the turpitude of this witness, and that she 
never did surmise as she asserts, nor ever had the 
suspicion she mentions, she went into Mr. Wentz's 
family by her own solicitation after Mary Albertson 
»2 



is 



left it, and occupied the same place which Mary had 
filled, and only thought of expressing her opinion of 
Mr. Wentz when his wife could no longer find employ- 
ment for her. Eleanor Hagner says that she went 
to talk to Mr. Wentz about his conduct. Eleanor 
was fifteen — Mr. Wentz forty years of age — won- 
derful counsellor ! I 

Elizabeth Hagner is the person to whom all must look 
for the establishment of the charge of Mr. Wentz's 
guilt; here is the only evidence which can have any 
bearing on the case; as to that of her daughter's, it is 
the mere echo of her mother's, and the mother must 
bear the shame and sin of its fabrication. This 
woman has told a story which if it could be believed, 
would tend to implicate Mr. Wentz; but let any 
person willing to find the truth, examine her testimo- 
ny. Every assertion she has made which tended in 
the least to impeach the character of Mr, Wentz, is 
roundly contradicted by Mrs. Westcott and Mrs. 
Wentz. As a proof of Mrs. Westcott's veracity 
and general good standing, her own minister, the Rev. 
Mr. Patterson, was one in the presbytery in favour of 
Mr. Wentz, to set aside the judgment of the sessions- 
would he have done so had he not believed that 
Mrs. Westcott was to be credited before Mrs. Hag- 
r*er — for it is a fact too well known to be denied, that 
Mrs. Hagner's character is not of a kind to give cur- 
rency to any of her assertions, which are not founded 
on well known facts. That Mrs. Wentz was to be be- 
lieved, the session have su^^nuently born ample tes- 
timony by granting to her, on dismission from the 



19 



church, a certificate of regular standing, in usual 
order: — but of this certificate hereafter. 

That Mrs. Hagner herself did not believe the as- 
sertions that she made to the session, that no surmi- 
ses and observations were made at the time she 
mentions, previously to the discovery of Mary's 
situation, is proved in the first place from Mrs. West- 
cott and Mrs. Wentz's testimony, and secondly, 
from the circumstance of her endeavouring to per- 
suade Mr. Wentz to retain her daughter in his fami- 
ly, after Mary Albertson had left it to be confined 
with the child. Had this immaculate witness really 
supposed that Mr. Wentz was such a dangerous 
person, had she believed or ever suspected that Mr. 
Wentz was the father of Mary's child, what would 
she be, less than the pander of her own child's in- 
famy, in attempting to place her within the same cir- 
cle of temptation, which had proved so fatal to Mary 
Albertson. This woman in a cloak of religion had 
worked herself into Mr. W entz's house; had insinua- 
ted herself into the sympathy and good opinion of 
the family by those little acts of officious kindness, 
which, having no intrinsic worth, pass themselves off 
in the minds of the unsuspecting, for indication of 
what might be hoped for, did the means equal the in- 
tentions. Her many professions, and her marked at- 
tention to some of the externals of religion, rendered 
her a fit subject for the exercises of the friendly acts 
on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Wentz, which probably 
induced her frequent visits, much more than the edi- 
fication which she was likely to derive from godly 



20 



conversation. It is a fact which should not be lost- 
sight of, in examining the character and motives of 
this witness, that she had almost habitually drawn 
her daily bread from the board of Mr. Wentz; that 
she had been indebted to Mrs. Wentz for many of 
those comforts which comparative affluence might 
easily and did cheerfully impart to her needy situa- 
tion; yet amidst all this profusion of profession on 
one hand and kindnesses on the other, this woman 
" lifts the heel" against her real friend?, and brings 
accusations and charges of the blackest nature, back- 
ed by assertions which nothing but prejudice could 
distort into proof. 

If then the evidence of this woman, is unworthy 
the notice of the session, what reasons can be assigned 
for her taking such a zealous part in this prosecution. 
What motive, it will be asked, could induce a hu- 
man being to array herself in the list of detraction, 
and endeavour to destroy, by such unhallowed means, 
the credit of a fellow mortal, even at the risk of her 
own soul. 

It is not easy, it is acknowledged, to enter into the 
secrets of the human heart, and detect the latent 
causes of the many strange proceedings of human 
beings, for indeed, " the heart of man is deceitful 
above all things and desperately wicked, who can know 
it?" yet a moderate share of knowledge of the hu- 
man character, will suffice to associate actions and 
expressions, and thence draw an inference of the 
motives, where little or no pains have been taken to 
disguise them, or where habits of loquacity have put 



21 



persons off their guard. The unhappy woman whose 
insatiable desire for conversation has been the sole 
cause of all the unhappiness connected with the 
following trial, had as has been stated, been in 
habits of intimacy with Mr. Wentz's family; some 
business between her son and Mr. Wentz had not 
met her approbation, and some supposed neglect on 
the part of Mrs. Wentz, had blown the growing coal 
of disaffection into anger. Revenge is the first im- 
pulse of an uncultivated mind under the impression 
of injury or neglect, and the unhappy situation of 
Mr. Wentz's servant, gave her an unhoped for op* 
portunity of gratifying her revenge. 

This woman, too, grown weary of the garments of 
of widowhood, had some intentions on officiating 
clergyman, and sought to ingratiate herself into his 
good graces, by weeping over the occasional lapses 
of professing brethren — supposed injury, offended 
pride, and a more sickly passim all laid hold on the 
error of Mary Albertson, as food for malice and de- 
traction (perhaps too, sympathy was concernee^ The 
assertion was accordingly hazarded that Mr. Wentz 
was the father of this expected child — age is doting 
and credulous — perhaps, too, other similar asser- 
tions were made to strengthen the good man's be- 
lief; he, however, appears to have fallen in with his 

informer and been among the earliest in the cry of 
scandal. 

We pause one moment on the conduct of this 
reverend gentleman — He was acquainted with Mr. 
Wentz — he had probably at the same table partaken 



22 



with him the memorials of a perfect love. He knew 
Mr. Wentz's character, he knew his standing in the 
church — He knew him the father of many children — 
the head of a family which must look to him for 
support, and which had never looked in vain. Did 
he then in the plenitude of gospel charity call on Mr. 
Wentz to acquaint him with the existence of those 
reports, and to ascertain their truth; to consult with 
him upon the best means of establishing his innocence; 
or if guilty, how best to save the christian name 
from the obloquy which its publicity would insure, 
or did he seize the first opportunity to circulate the 
scandal — did he acquaint a brother with the particu- 
lars, and thus join his voice to hunt down a proscri- 
bed man? 

Whatever may be the virtues of this man, however 
useful his humble post in the ministry, he certainly, if 
possessed of any reflection, will number those among 
his unprofitable visits, which were made occasion for 
circulating those slanderous reports against Mr. 
Wentz, which had then not been acted upon in session, 
and these visits have been neither few nor unwilling. 

But to return, having thus stated the story, this 
Woman was bound to support the assertion or risk 
her standing in the church — the alternative was easily 
decided. It was only to give some form to the 
story already started, to associate a few innocent 
or commendable facts, and draw as a conclusion what 
might spring from such conduct, and swear that her 
inferences were legitimately drawn from these facts 
— a daughter could add that she believed just as her 



23 



mother did, and the work of defamation and de- 
struction was finished. This woman, under such 
feelings, and influenced by such motives, could in the 
presence of the Almighty swear to things, which, to 
say the least of them, could not be corroborated; 
and there was found an ecclesiastical court sufficiently 
venal to pass sentence of condemnation from such 
evidence. The candid man will be at a loss which 
most to be astonished at, the black and determinate 
malice of the witness or the stupid prejudice of the 
court. 

It is belived when this person made the assertion of 
Mr. Wentz's guilt, she never expected it would go 
forth; she probably had no farther idea than to in- 
jure Mr. Wentz a little with the worthy person on 
whom she had cast a wishful eye, and gratify a 
darling and cherished propensity for petit defama- 
tion and scandal, and as she had so frequently in- 
dulged in it with impunity, she hardly had reason to 
expect any unusual result. But unfortunately her 
auditor had propensities as well as herself, and 
probably others had been admitted to the secret 
of this new course of scandal. Here then was the story 
made public, and she believed, at least by the one 
whose good opinion she would willingly preserve, to 
be the first person who had uttered a word on the 
subject. There was no way to avoid a public inqui- 
ry; she therefore swears to certain confessions of 
Mary Albertson — Mary Albertson swears she never 
uttered a word on the subject; and the charcter of 
Mary Albertson, on examination, will be found, in 



24 



every respect, equal to that of this important witness: 
" true indeed, every means employed had not been 
equally successful" 

In invalidating the evidence of this witness, whose 
motives, however, are sufficiently apparent, from her 
own words, no assertion is hazarded nor any allusion 
made without good grounds. Is it to be supposed 
that with so much to lose, and perhaps some- 
thing to gain, a woman would stick at the work of 
destroying a charcter, which not being accomplished, 
would ruin her own patched-up reputation. 

It would indeed be an Herculean task to detect all 
the strange perversions of the session, and exhibit in 
a proper light its continual attempts to suppress the 
evidence which had a tendency to clear Mr. Wentz 
from the charges exhibited against him. Where, in 
the course of the trial by the session, it may well be 
asked, was found that kind spirit of christian charity 
which would deal with the aspersed character of a 
brother as if in the hope to find it unstained —the re- 
cords of the session and the manner and tones of its 
members, which no record can do justice to, show 
that it was not there. There was found no friendly 
hand to seize upon parts of evidence which might be 
construed favourably, and apply them as corrobo- 
rations of presumptive innocence; and when positive 
assertions were made, the spirit which had dictated 
this whole nefarious work, was found debased enough 
to suppress them in order to favour the purposes of 
those who were bound to crush what they could not ' 



25 



endure. Take the following circumstance for an ex- 
ample. 

Mr. Gartley was called before the session, as. 
a witness in favour of Mr. Wentz; to the aston- 
ishment and disappointment of the session, he knew 
a person by the name of Burdock — this was an an- 
swer lor which they were unprepared — no other wit* 
ness had ever known the name. The connexions 
of these Burdocks were well known to almost every 
member of the session. Mr. Gartley directed the 
session to the very house where they were to be 
found; and these very Burdocks were natives of 
New York, where Isaac Burdock had said he be- 
longed; and it is well known to those who are ac- 
quainted in that city, that there are families of that 
name now living there. Here then was a loop for the 
hand of charity to hang a hope upon — did session 
avail itself of it; did it seem to hope that there was 
some probability for Mary Albertson's story? Let its 
own actions tell — tt condemned Mr. Wentz, and he 
appealed to the presbytery. The session was bound 
to furnish the judicatory with the evidence on which 
it had condemned the accused. The presbytery was 
accordingly furnished with minutes of the trial, at- 
tested by the clerk. In this record, not one word 
appears of Mr. Gartley's evidence relative to the 
name of Burdock; the whole was suppressed; it can- 
not be urged that this evidence was overlooked; it 
was taken by the acting clerk, and afterwards read to 
the witness — it must have been wilful and premedi- 
tated; and that it was to serve some purpose cannot 
be doubted, when we take into consideration the 
assertion of Doctor Janeway and Mr. Henry to the 
presbytery, that not one witness had known the name 
of Burdock. — Let it be remembered that Doctor 
Janeway and Mr. Henry, were both in the session, 

c 



26 



and heard this evidence given in, and they dared to 
hazard this assertion. — Oh shame where is thy blush. 
. We must naturally feel astonished to see men 
who claim eminence from high profession of piety, 
and who would be entitled to respect from the 
situations they occupy in the church, descend to the 
menial drudgery of collecting witnesses from the 
depraved and failing of the profession, to support 
a cause, in which not one respectable person could 
be found to testify against the accused; but this as- 
tonishment dwindles into contempt, for the short 
sighted beings when we find them so busy in their 
works of destruction, as totally to lose sight of 
self preservation — as absolutely to be ensnared in the 
very toils they were laying for another. 

By an attention to the evidence and the preceding 
remarks, it will be perceived that there was not a 
word of evidence which could be brought in support 
of the charge against Mr. Wentz, except what Eli- 
zabeth Hagner deposed — the other witnesses could 
be of no consequence, excepting as mere supporters 
of this great corner stone of the prosecution; their 
evidence was mere surmise, hearsay, and almost 
acknowledged falsehoods. On Mrs. Hagner's evi- 
dence then the session condemned Mr. Wentz. But 
the more important parts of Mrs. Hagner's evidence 
is so roundly contradicted by Mrs. Wentz; that 
either one or the other must stand before the session 
guilty of premeditated falsehood, under the awful 
responsibility of an oath. To believe Mrs. Wentz, 
was to discredit the only testimony they had to sup- 
port the charge. Mrs. Wentz was suffered to stand 
impliedly charged with perjury — in order that her 
husband might be condemned on the evidence which, 
she was brought to disprove, and which, if she had 
been believed, would have been set aside as false and 



27 



malicious. After the termination of this trial, Mrs. 
Wentz applied to the session for dismissal from the 
church, and received a certificate of regular standing, 
and the usual recommendation to any sister church. 
Now, how could the session give Mrs. Wentz a 
certificate, if they supposed that she had sworn falsely, 
when opposed to Mrs. Hagner? For the palliation of 
misunderstanding could not be urged; they both re- 
ported conversations and events which could not be 
mistaken. And if Mrs. Wentz told the truth, as it 
evidently made Mrs. Hagner's evidence an absolute 
falsehood, how could they condemn Mr. Wentz on 
her testimony? The sum is this — if Mrs. Wentz 
was to be believed, how could Mr. Wentz be con- 
demned on evidence which she expressly contra- 
dicted; but, if she was not believed; if her assertions 
were false, as the admission of Mrs, Hagner's must 
prove them, how could the session give Mrs. Wentz 
a certificate of regular standing? In this the session 
has placed itself, by its conduct, in a dilemma they 
had hardly anticipated; indeed, the members of this 
judicatory seem, in the course of this trial, to have 
paid but little attention to the consequences of their 
oppression, unused to having their proceedings cen- 
sured, they could scarcely expect censure, even from 
flagrant violation of individual privileges. 

In their desolating march towards their determined 
end, the character and feelings of individuals were 
totally disregarded; charges of perjury and forgery 
were the common missiles of these indignant cham- 
pions of religion. The hallowed feelings of mother 
and wife were outraged by implied insults, and the 
known character of Sarah Wentz for probity and all 
the round of christian and domestic duties, were put 
in comparison with that of a female, whose character 
is no longer doubtful, and whose virtue must owe its 



28 



security to the absence of temptation. Before this 
session, grey hairs failed of reverence, and the al- 
most unfailing attendants on protracted life, brought 
down the ridicule of this perfect body of christians. 

When the motives and feelings of witnesses and 
prosecutors have been sufficiently scanned, when the 
manner of giving in evidence and of conducting the 
trial is well examined, there can hardly remain a doubt 
upon the mind of a candid man, that truth was the 
last thing the session sought for. Their's was the 
full determination to convict, and the pretend- 
ed surmises against the character of the accused, 
was admitted as proof, strong as holy writ, while 
the fair deductions from natural consequences, were 
stifled as if not their duty to draw, or if drawn, as in- 
terfering with the course of their vindictive vengeance. 

Had Mr. Wentz pursued the criminal or suspi- 
cious course of conduct which is charged upon him by 
his accusers and surmised by their witnesses, those 
witnesses could not have been the first to see or 
suspect the crime — Their's, if real, must have been 
the slow discovery of impudent obtruding guilt; their 
suspicions must have sprung up subsequently to the 
painful cause, and have been confirmed by open vio- 
lation of christian conduct and public decency. 

There was another eye to discover even the infant 
steps of temptation, that would watch the approach 
to such infamy, and scarcely slumber over coming 
or repeated wrongs. The crime of Mr. Wentz, if 
ever committed, must have been done in the same 
house with his wife — if ever repeated, must have aU 
most invited her observation. Breach of the mar- 
riage vow is rarely the first step in guilt; nor is the 
bulwark of virtue to be carried by a single attack. . 
Approach must be made and favour conciliated, pas* 



29 



sion must be excited and reason hushed, before the 
last tie of female honour can be severed, or the last 
right of connubial fidelity violated. In these alleged 
approximations towards infamy on the part of Mr. 
Wentz, when all that is sacred in domestic life was 
to be violated, where was the guardian eye of Mrs. 
Wentz? Where was that spirit of jealousy to which 
even trifling causes awaken a female's mind, and to 
which such gross proceeding must have stirred up a 
brute? Mrs. Wentz is not exempted, more than 
other women, from that true sense of delicacy which 
would start at the least infringement of her honour; 
she would, like every other woman, indignantly spurn 
a wretch who would sacrifice his honour to his pas- 
sion, and make his own dwelling the arena of his 
crime. Her mind, though slow to believe the reports 
of scandal, would have been the earliest to receive 
the impression which such palpable impropriety 
would have made. The mother of ten children would 
not have compromised her honour with the bondmaid 
to disenfranchise herself and offspring from the rights 
of nature and affection, to gratify the lawless craving 
of unhallowed appetite. Human nature is at this day 
too well known, to suppose that Mrs. Wentz could 
have witnessed the grossness of conduct, to which 
some witnesses testify, on the part of her husband 
and Mary, and not have taken measures to prevent a 
repetition of the injury. There lives not a female of 
any standing in society, so dead to every finer feeling 
of the heart, as tamely to support such outrages up- 
on her rights — to witness with complacency the pre- 
paration for crime — pause in silence over its consum- 
mation, — and then seek to bury its consequences in 
oblivion! Yet such would the witness make Mrs* 
Wentz, and such does the session affect to believe her. 
They would do more — they endeavoured to prove 
c2 



so 



that Mrs. Wentz believed the child to be her 
husband's, assisted in paying the expenses of its birth 
and support, to the prejudice of her own family. — 
This is indeed taking the children's bread and giv- 
ing it to dogs. 

Having thus made some observations upon the 
conduct of those who have persecuted Mr. Wentz 
to such extremes, and endeavoured to expose the 
feelings and motives of those miserable objects who 
have been their tools, it, perhaps, will become neces- 
sary that something should be said of the reasons 
which have induced a publication of the investigation. 

It is known to almost every person acquainted 
with Mr. Wentz, or with those concerned in the 
trial, that every means has been put in requisition to 
circulate the reports which were unfavourable to 
him, that every article of the evidence against 
him was trumpeted forth with exultation and indus- 
try, and not an unfavourable surmise was offered in 
the session, by their cat's-paw evidence, that is not 
now quoted as proof of guilt by those who, from in- 
terest or ignorance, deem it unlawful to doubt the 
decision of the session, although set aside by the 
presbytery. It has therefore been deemed incum- 
bent that the world should know what sort of evi- 
dence was relied upon, by the session, to form their 
decision, and what were the means employed, and 
what the feelings exercised, to obtain such evidence, 
as was received. Mr. Wentz stands connected to 
society by some of the most important ties; he is a 
citizen, and as such he possesses those rights, which 
only vice can alienate; he is a member of a commu- 
nity to which he owes a vindication of character, 
which only malice had dared to blacken and preju- 
dice defame; he is a husband and a father; the 
sacred retreat of domestic quiet has been broken id 



31 



upon, by the unhallowed steps of slander; the long 
unbroken chain of happiness, which years of domes- 
tic solicitude had strengthened and extended, is 
rudely snapped by the unprovoked interference of 
those whose innate restlessness burned to destroy 
that enjoyment which it had denied to themselves; 
in vain the sanctity of the family circle urged itself 
on the minds of the slanderers and those who aided 
them; in vain were the feelings of a wife interposed; 
neither they, nor the all-pleading situation of help- 
less infancy, could be regarded: — the bow was bent 
upon them, and " the arm was made strong" by 
those who little recked the misery they might create. 

Mr. Wentz was a professing christian; the cause 
of that Saviour, which he professed to follow, was in 
danger of being injured by those who love to wipe 
the stains from the garment of the offending christian 
upon the spotless robe of his ascended Lord; he 
therefore appealed to the church from the slander of 
its members; he demanded to be tried and be judged 
by them, according to the facts which should be ex- 
hibited. Could he suppose that a judicatory com- 
posed of those with whom he had often taken sweet 
counsel, would attempt to prejudice a brother? Could 
he think that men under the solemnity with which 
they were convened, would rest evidence, indulge 
surmises, and darken counsel, to effect purposes un- 
worthy the basest purposes, and apparently to realize 
assertions they had hazarded, or to avenge a suppo- 
sed indignity which these contumelies had wrung 
from the object of the persecution. With the hope 
therefore of meeting the slanders which have been so 
extensively circulated, and by placing the subject 
fairly before the mind of the community, and to con- 
vince the humble christian that any injury to the 



32 



cause of religion, which the circumstances attending 
this trial may hav e created, is not to be ascribed to 
j\Ir. Wentz — this report is submitted to the public. 

Should any suppose that in these remarks a warmth 
of feeling has been indulged in hazarding expres- 
sions of a recriminating nature, Tor a moment let the 
extent of Mr. Wentz's injury be recollected; he had, 
in the arduous exertion of supporting a numerous 
and growing family, been studiously attentive to 
preserve a good name, which is rather to be chosen 
than great riches; in the conflicting interests of busi- 
ness and the various changes which it suffers, he had 
found a just and hallowed retreat in the bosom of an 
amiable family, who looked to him not less for sup- 
port than for guidance and example; in the sanctuary 
of the Lord, when he was a quiet and unimpeached 
partaker of its privileges, he had found that comfort 
and peace which cometh from above, in the contem- 
plation of these blessings, enhanced by the conscious- 
ness of pure intentions, and deserved respect, he had 
looked down the vista of life to a quiet age, when 
a good name should have given worth to the pater- 
nal inheritance of his offspring. But there were 
found those who could aim an undeserved blow at 
his fair reputation, who would attempt to desolate 
the paradise of domestic quiet by attempting to with- 
draw the respect of the child from the integritv of the 
father, and destroy the confidence of the wife in the. 
honour of the husband; who would snatch from him 
the last comfort of the afflicted, the privileges of his 
father's board, and smite him from the horns of the 
altar; and then attempt to cut him off from the com- 
passion which even the guilty may receive. In 
smarting then under these injuries, and contempla- 
ting the possible and real consequences, surely, a 
man 44 may be angry and sin not." 



PROCEEDINGS 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERY OF PHILADELPHIA 

IN THE CASE OF 



Thursday , April 20th, 1820. 

Mr. Samuel Wentz of the city of Philadelphia, 
handed a paper to Presbytery, containing an appeal 
from a decision of the Second Presbyterian Church 
in the city of Philadelphia, in his case, and presented 
a request that he might be heard by counsel.* 

Whereupon, Presbytery resolved that it has not 
been customary with this judicatory to permit parties 

* To the Reverend Presbytery of Philadelphia. 
The undersigned respectfully represents — 

That he was a member of the Second Presbyterian Church 
in the city of Philadelphia. On the 18th day of November, A. D. 
1819, the session of I at church, after a trial, had excluded him 
from the sealing ordinances of the church, for reasons stated in 
their decision; from which decision the undersigned immediate- 
ly appealed to the Presbytery of Philadelphia. 

He now, therefore, respectfully solicits the Presbytery to 
hear his appeal, and, if not inconsistent with the rules and prac- 
tices in such cases, to permit him to be heard by counsel, as he 
does not feel himself qualified to conduct his cause, and prays a 
day to be fixed for hearing the same. 

Respectfully remaining fyc. 

SAMUEL WENTZ. 



34 



io be heard by legal counsel; but Mr. Wentz has per- 
mission to be heard by any member of this judica- 
tory whom he may choose to employ as his proxy, 
it being understood that such proxy is not to vote on 
the question. 

The decision of said session, and the appeal from 
the same were read — Ordered that the reading of 
the documents in the case be deferred until to-mor- 
row morning. 



Friday morning, April 21, 1820. 

Agreeably to the order of the day, the considera- 
tion of the appeal from the decision of the Second 
Presbyterian Church was resumed. 

Mr. Wentz was informed by the moderator, that 
Presbytery had decided that he had permission to 
be heard by any member of the Presbytery whom he 
may choose to employ as his proxy — 

Whereupon he stated that he chose Mr. Thomas 
Bradford, Jr. a member of Presbytery, as his proxy, 
who accepted the duty. 

The sessional documents in the case were then 
read as follows; 



MINUTES OP THE SESSION 



Philadelphia, 5th October, 1819. 
Session met at their room, and constituted with 
prayer. 



Revd. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator* 

Messrs. Isaac Snowden, 
Robert Ralston, 
William Brown, 
Alexander Henry, ^Elders. 
Daniel Jaudon, 
Thomas Latimer and | 
Robert Smithy J 



The moderator stated that he had called the ses- 
sion in consequence of an application of Mr. Robert 
Murphey and Mr. Daniel Smith, both members of 
the church. After conversing on the subject, the ses- 
sion agreed to hear what Mr. Murphey and Mr. 
Smith had to communicate, the brethren, having ap- 
peared before session, stated that there was a crying 
rumour in circulation against Mr. Samuel Wentz, a 
member of the church, charging him with illicit 
commerce with a young female. The session, 
having deliberated on the subject, it was found that 
the members of the session had individually heard 
something on the subject; it was therefore on motion 
determined to appoint a committee to make inquiry 
into this matter. 



Present 



36 



Mr. Jaudon and Mr. Latimer were accordingly 
appointed a committee to make the inquiry, and re- 
port the result to the session. Adjourned and con- 
cluded with prayer. 



October 15th, 1819. 
Session met at the church agreeably to adjournment, 
and constituted with prayer. 
Present, 
Rev. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator. 

Messrs. Robert Ralston, Daniel Jaudon, William 
Brown, Isaac Snowden, Alexander Henry, Thomas 
Latimer, and Robert Smith, Elders. 

The committee who were appointed to inquire into 
the reports in circulation respecting the conduct of 
Mr. Samuel Wentz, a member of the church, made 
the following report, which was read: 

The committee appointed by session on the 5th 
inst. to inquire into the reports now in circulation, 
respecting the moral character of Mr. Samuel Wentz T 
a communicating member of this church, Report— 
That in pursuance of their appointment, they have 
seen and conversed with several persons relative to 
the grounds of said reports, and find that he is be- 
lieved by many to have had illicit commerce with 
Mary Albertson, late a professing member of a sis- 
ter church, and to be the father of an illegitimate 
child lately born of her; and that he is suspected of 
having been instrumental in leading her into still 
deeper guilt, in order to hide his own. The com- 
mittee further report, that they have seen and con- 
versed with individuals who professed a willingness 
to appear before the session (if requested) to deliver 
their testimony in relation to this unhappy affair; that 
they have had a communication with Mr. Wentz, 
who solemnly professed his innocence, and expressed 
to them his desire to have his conduct investigated 
by the session. 



37 



The committee present to the session the follow- 
ing persons as witnesses, viz. 

Elizabeth Hagner, Grace Bowker, Mary Snyder^ 
Eliza Albertson, John Gilder and wife, Peter Evans 
tind wife, Mary Conrad, Mrs, Engard and daughter. 

The session having heard the above report— 

Resolved to cite Mr. Samuel Wentz, and he is 
hereby cited to appear before the session on Saturday 
the 6th day of November next at 3 o'clock P. M. in . 
the room next to the 2d Presbyterian church, to an- 
swer to the charge of illicit commerce with Mary 
Albertson, and of being the father of the child of 
which she has been lately delivered. 

Resolved, that the clerk furnish Mr. Wentz with 
a copy of the above minute, together with the names 
of the witnesses. 

Resolved, that the clerk cite, or request any person 
as a witness to attend in relation to this charge whom 
Mr. Wentz may name. 

Resolved, that he also request the individuals men- 
tioned by the committee to appear before the session 
as witnesses, on the trial of the above charge against 
Mr. Wentz, at the time and place of meeting. 

Resolved, the Revd. Dr. Janeway, Messrs. Jaudon, 
and Latimer, be a committee to converse with Mr. 
Wentz, and endeavour to bring him to a confession 
of his guilt (if he be guilty) in this matter. Ad- 
journed and concluded with prayer. 



October 25th, 1819. 
Session met at their room and constituted by prayer. 
Present 

The Revd. Dr. Janeway, Moderator. 

Messrs. Ralston, Jaudon, Latimer, Henry, Brown, 
Smith, and Snowden, Elders. 

The session met in order to take the testimony of 
Mrs. Maria Kochler, (a witness produced by Mr. 
S. Wentz) who was about to leave the city. 

B 



38 



Mrs. Kochler being sworn by the moderator, gave 
the following testimony, viz. 
Maria Kochler, on the 1 

part of Mr. Wentz. J 

That Mrs. Wentz, came to her house and en- 
quired about lodgings for the young woman during 
her confinement. This was in the month of August, 
say the 7th or 8th. The compensation to be made 
was from the young woman herself — she came to the 
house about the 15th of the same month. This pay- 
ment it was supposed would arise out of her wages, 
understanding that the father of the child could pay 
nothing — that he was gone off and could not expect 
to get any thing from him — always received her 
money weekly — nursed her also, and the young wo- 
man paid the midwife herself. The young woman 
after the child was born told her that the father of 
the child was Isaac Burdock, who had gone to the 
city of New York; this was a few days after the birth 
of the child. Before the affidavits were made by the 
mother of the child, she told the witness who was 
the father— never varied in her statement, but ad- 
hered to the assertion that Burdock was the father of 
the child. Never heard any particulars relative to 
Mr. Burdock — she understood that he had been re- 
siding in this city transciently. The child is a 
daughter — the mother is in good health. The young 
woman desired that she might be kept as private as 
possible. Burdock left the city soon after the preg- 
nancy was ascertained, otherwise the young woman 
would have taken measures to get something from 
him — Burdock gave reason to suppose that he would 
marry the girl. The young woman is now at Mr. 
W entz's, waiting to get a place. 

Questions put by Mr, Wentz — Did I ever enjoin 
secrecy, or did Mrs. Wentz, to keep the young 
woman private? 

Ans. Never. 

Suites. Was I ever at the house except in company 
with Mr. Gartley? 



w 



39 



Ans. Never before, but has been since. 

The 18th of September was the day Mr. Wentz 
called with Mr. Gartley and Mr. Green. 

Suites. Did I ever pay you or did Mrs. Wentz pay 
any thing for the young woman's support? 

Ans. Never received any — nor any promise of in= 
demnity in any way — never knew that the young 
woman ever received any supplies from Mr. Bur- 
dock. 

Had you any reason to suppose that I was 
the father of the child? 

Ans. Never — never saw Mr. Wentz using any 
improper familiarities with the young woman. 

Mrs. K. is a married woman, the daughter of a 
Mr. Seibert. The young woman resided about 10 
weeks with her at $4 per week, was paid during her 
confinement, and jgl 50, before and afterwards. 
From her confidence in the young womcm, she be- 
lieves Burdock really to be the father of the child- 
believing the young woman never to have had con- 
nection with any other — nothing ever occurred since 
her acquaintance with. the young woman, that would 
lead her to suppose that she was a person of easy 
access, or would receive the improper attentions of 
the other sex. The child was born the 14th Sep- 
tember. 

(Signed) MARIA KOCHLER. 

Philad. 25th Oct. 1819. 

The committee appointed to converse with Mr. 
Wentz on the subject of the charge preferred against 
him — 

Reported, that they have had a conversation with 
Mr. Wentz, and endeavoured to bring him to a con- 
fession of his guilt, (if he were guilty) and that he 
persevered in declaring his intire innocence. 

The clerk reported that he had issued citations to 
Mr. Wentz, agreeably to the order ox session, and a 
request to the witnesses, mentioned in the former 
minute, who are not members of the church, also to 

l 



10 



the following persons, at the request of Mr. Wentes, 
viz. 

Maria Kochler, Peter Christian, esq. William To- 
tem, esq. William Hughes, John H. Gartley, John- 
Green, ^William Carpenter, *Mrs. Davis, Mary Al- 
bertson, Mrs. Wentz, * William Hagner, Mrs. West- 
eott, * George Anderson, * Margaret Cassady, 
*Dr. Perkins, * Jonathan Wentz, * William Bender, 
% William Fail, jr. ^Sophia Pike, * Hannah Steiner. 

Concluded with prayer. 



Philadelphia, November 6th, 1819. 
Session met at their room and constituted with prayer. 
Present 

Revd, Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator. 

Messrs. Ralston, Latimer, Jaudon, Brown, Henrys 
and Smith, Elders. 

The following persons appeared before the session, 
and gave their testimony, viz. 

John Guilder in behalf of the church, was affirmed 
and testified, that Mary Albertson belonged to the 
same religious society with the witness, and to a 
class of which he is the leader; the first of his know- 
ing Mary Albertson's situation was last spring, 
when she called on the witness and mentioned her 
desire to withdraw from the society, he expostulated 
with her, to consider the propriety of the measure, 
and parted. She called again in about two weeks, 
and expressed the same desire, adding, that she had 
done something which was very bad — after the wit- 
ness left the house, Mary Albertson informed his 
wife what was her situation. Some months after 
this, he saw Mary Albertson in the room where she 
was confined with her child. She expressed her sat- 
isfaction that he thought so well of her as to come and 
see her. He expressed a regret that she had brought 
herself into that situation, having had a good opinion 

* Mr. Wentz, observing very improper conduct on the part 
ef the session, declined offering these witnesses. 



41 



of her piety, at this she wept, he asked her whether 
Mr. Wentz was not the father of the child, to which 
she requested that this question might not be put to 
her; this was in a flood of tears— he asked who sup- 
ported her there, to which she also requested that 
she might not be asked that question — he then spoke 
to her on the subject of the oath that she had taken, 
and considering what she had said to other persons. 
She observed that she had done more than one bad 
thing, when he replied that he thought the last was 
worse than the first, having reference to the oath, and 
which she had (as he believes) also — he then asked 
her if she had not told Grace Bowker that Mr. 
Wentz had been following her for some time, and if 
she had not advised her to leave Mr. Wentz's house, 
she answered no, but that she had told Mary Sny- 
der so. 

Question by the Session — Whether the witness 
had any difficulty in getting access to Mary Albert- 
son? 

Ans. Not at the first time — but when he called a 
second time, was refused — this was in company with 
Mr. Walters. 

£>ues. Was there any reasons given that she could 
not be seen? 

Ans. A black girl went up stairs and returned say- 
ing that Mary Albertson would see no one at that 
i time. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz — How long did Mary 
Albertson belong to the class? 

Ans. About six or seven years — more or less. 

§>iies. Were you in the habit of calling on Mary 
Albertson to pray in the class? 

Ans. Yts I had done it several times. 

§>ves. Did you ever know any thing improper in 
her conduct? 

J±ns. Never till the discovery of the present affair, 

Unites. Did you not agree with your wife that Mary 
Albertson should not attend the class? 

D 2 



42 



Arts, I did not, nor ever heard my wife say any 
thing on the subject. 

S$>ues. How long is it since Mary Albertson was 
read out of the society? 

Ans. It was at the last quarterly love feast, sup- 
posed to be about the first September. 

§>ues. Did you ever mention to your wife that 
Mary Albertson might have her name struck off the 
class list and put on again without being exposed? 

Ans. Never had mentioned any such thing. 

S^ues. Do you not think that Mary Albertson was 
read out on the 18th September? 

Ans, I do not know the exact time of the love 
feast, but this can easily be ascertained. 

ghies. How long is it since you think Mary Al- 
bertson would take a false oath? 

Ans. When I had heard that she had taken an 
oath, I suspected the truth of it; and from the time 
of her pregnancy he would of course lose his confi- 
dence in her, though he does not recollect that he had 
thought on the subject of an oath by her, previously 
to her taking" it. 

Suites* After a girl has been unfortunate, do you 
suppose that such an oath would of course be false? 

Ans. It might or it might not. I would always 
judge by the circumstances connected with the case. 

Eliza Albertson, sister of Mary Albertson, a wit- 
ness on behalf of the church, was sworn. Testified-— 
That she went to see Mary Albertson at Mr. Mor- 
ris's, where she had gone to service from Mr. 
Wentz's, suspecting that something was the matter 
and requested that she would tell her, when she did 
inform, what she supposed was her situation, tha 
she did not tell her positively that Mr. Wenfz wa 
the father, but said that she had told Mr. Wentz t 
his face, that he was the father of the child, of whic 
she was pregnant, and no body else. She called se 
veral times to see her at Mr. Morris's, when Ma~~ 
Albertson observed that she should say nothing abou 
■it, both for her own and for her sister's sake, that 
Mr. Wentz would provide for the child* 



43 



Qitestion by the Session. Do you believe that 
Mary Albertson was in earnest and sincere, when 
she said Mr. Wentz was the father? 

Ans. She did believe so, and still believes so. 

^ues. Do you believe or give credit to the oath 
of Mary Albertson, which clears Mr. Wentz ? 

Ans. I do not believe it or give credit to it. 

Suites, What reasons have you to doubt or dis- 
credit this ? 

Ans. She was satisfied in her own mind from what 
she has heard from her sister Mary Albertson, that 
the oath cannot be true ; and nothing would per- 
i suade her to believe it to be true. 

In a conversation after the birth of the child, when 
Mary Albertson called on the witness ; she said she 
had cleared Mr. Wentz, when the witness replied, 
you have cleared him with a lie. The answer was^ 
that the communication made relative to Mr. Wentz 
was to her as a friend; and farther stated that Mary 
Albertson did not deny that she had taken a false 
oath; neither did she confess it. Previously to this, 
anxious to see Mary Albertson, she called on Mrs. 
Wentz to know where Mary Albertson was, when 
she refused to tell her, but said, she, Mary Albert- 
son, was doing well. She then called where Mary Al- 
bertson lodged, and was refused admittance to her; 
twice these calls were made, and she was refused. 
Mary Albertson then called on the witness, to whom 
it was mentioned that she, the witness, had called to 
see her and was refused admittance. The person seen 
when she was refused was a mulatto girl, who beha- 
ved very impertinently and threatened what she 
would do if she called again, and would not take her 
word for it. She is not certain whether she first 
heard where Mary Albertson was from Mr. Sloan, 
or a young woman who lives next door. The third 
time she called to see Mary Albertson, the refusal 
was made by an old gentleman. Mr. Sloan who was 
with the witness at this time, told the old gentleman 
that the witness was the sister of Mary Albertson, 



44 



and that Grace Bowkerwas there wanting to see Mary 
Albertson. The old gentleman gave this information 
to a young woman, who went up stairs and returned 
with an answer, that it was not convenient to see 
Mary Albertson. 

£hies. Did Mary Albertson ever say that she 
would rather be burnt than expose Mr. Wentz's 
family? 

Ans. Mary Albertson told her, the witness, that 
before she would expose Mr. Wentz's family she 
would rather be burnt or throw herself entirely 
away. 

^iiestions by the Session. 

Did you ever hear of, or suspect improper con- 
duct in relation to Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson 
before she confessed to you? 

Am. I did not know what was the matter — but 
Mary Albertson did not wish to stay at Mr. Wentz's, 
she did not however enter into particulars. 

twites. Do you know the male company Mary Al- 
bertson usually kept? 

Ans. Did not know; their residence was so far 
apart from each other. 

§>ues. Do you know the person of Isaac Burdock? 

Ans. I do not know, nor ever heard of such a person. 

§>ues. Do you suppose that Mary Albertson might 
have had an acquaintance with Isaac Burdock with- 
out your knowledge? 

Ans. From the confidence subsisting between us, 
I do not think it probable, though it may be possible. 

§>ues. Do you know, or have you ever heard of 
any one that did know Isaac Burdock? 

Ans. I never did. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. 

Who called upon you the first time to go and see 
Mary Albertson? 

Ans. There was a young woman of the name of 
Lucretia M'Claskey, w ho told me that Mary Albert- 
son was confined. 



45 



^t(es. Was this before the conversation that took 
place between you and Mr. Sloan in the alley? 

Ans. Yes — Mr. Sloan did request me to go up and 
see Mrs. Wentz, in order to obtain information 
where Mary Albertson was. 

§jues. Did you ever go to see Mary Albertson af- 
ter hearing of her situation, at Mr. Morris's, before 
her confinement? 

Ans. Yes; several times. 

§>iies. Did Mary Albertson ever tell you not to 
come and see her after she should leave Mr. Mor- 
ris's? 

Ans. She did request me not to call and see her. 

Suites. What induced you to call out in the street 
on the Sabbath, that your sister was confined in the 
third story of a house, and endeavour to raise a mob? 

Ans, I do not remember that I called out in the 
street with any view to raise a mob, 1 might have men- 
tioned to a boy that was with me, and a young woman 
standing at a door, something relative to Mary Al- 
bertson, but do not know what; it was however, not- 
much of any thing. 

£hies. Do you recollect saying, that Mr. Wentz 
had your sister confined in that house? 

Ans. I do not recollect ever saying such a thing. 

The witness intimated before she retired, thatthere 
was some more on her mind, and being urged to de- 
clare the whole truth, she said Mary Albertson told 
her the night that the connection took place with Mr. 
Wentz, and that it was last New Year's night, being 
asked where it took place, she replied that it was in 
the sitting room, or where the family dines; she had 
been out at meeting, and Mr. Wentz was waiting for 
her to come home — the family having retired to bed. 

Mary Albertson told her, that Mr. Wentz some 
time after, was sick abed, in consequence of the con- 
nection. 

Elizabeth Hagner, a witness on behalf of the 
church, was sworn and testified, 

That some time in January last, Mrs. Wentz 



46 



came to her house and stated the uneasiness she had 
on her mind, relative to Mary Albertson; she did 
not speak very plain; I waved the subject; she then 
dropt it herself. Next morning, Mrs. Wentz came 
in, and told me more plainly her uneasiness; she told 
me that things had not been right in the house for 
some time, and told me that Mr. Wentz, and Mary 
Albertson, had been rather too intimate, and won- 
dered how she could be blind to it so long. I told 
her then I had felt uneasy myself, at seeing them 
going out together; she asked me if I would speak 
to Mr. Wentz about it; I told her if she thought it 
would be of any service, I would. I do not recol- 
lect if it was that same morning or the next, it was 
one of the two, he came to the door, where I met 
him; I asked him to walk in, he said yes, and obser- 
ved he knew what I wanted. I had some conver- 
sation with him on the subject; I asked him if he 
did not think it was imprudent to go out with Mary 
Albertson so much alone; I asked him if they were 
not putting themselves in the way of temptation; I 
stated to him, that it was not a proper thing for him 
to stay up at night, and wait for her. The conver- 
sation with Mr. Wentz, continued for about an hour, 
during which time I did not accuse Mr. Wentz of 
any thing criminal, but treated with him on the score 
of imprudence. Mary Albertson called on the 
evening of the same day, she appeared to be in great 
distress when she came in; told me she had some- 
thing to communicate; I asked if she had well con- 
sidered the matter before she came, she said she had, 
and that she had been tempted very often before to 
tell me the circumstance, she insisted upon telling 
me, she then proceeded on to say, that Mr. Wentz 
had professed an attachment to her. I asked her 
how she could bear to stay in the house; she said she 
hardly knew how to account for that; she then went 
on to state how Mrs. Wentz came to discover any 
imprudent intimacy, she said on the Monday com- 
ing, previous to the evening she was conversing with 



47 



me, that Mr. Wentz and his brother were out. 
They came home, Mr. Wentz was much displeased 
that Mrs. Wentz and Mary were up so late, and 
said some words that gave Mary pain — she retired 
into the back kitchen and wept. Mrs. Wentz retired 
to bed; Mr. Wentz and his brother went next door; 
she Mary Albertson staid up till they both returned. 
Mr. Wentz came to the kitchen to her, and conver- 
sed with her; he pursued the customary plan of pro- 
fessing his attachment to her — she said that he kissed 
her upon her neck, and left a bluish mark. The 
next morning Mrs. Wentz discovered the mark, and 
asked what that was on her neck? Her conscience 
condemned her, and she confessed to Mrs. Wentz, 
how it came there. Mrs. Wentz and her, spent a 
very unhappy day in consequence of it. Mrs. W entz 
called on me more or less every day, as a person in 
great distress. Mary complained some time after, 
perhaps a week, that she was not well, and wished a 
physician. Dr. Perkins was sent for. The doctor 
inquired of Mrs. Wentz if she thought that the girl 
was clear from being in the family way — Mrs. Wentz 
told him she thought she was, accordingly he pre- 
scribed for her; she continued taking medicine for 
about a week. Mrs. Wentz came in every day ex- 
pressing her uneasiness about Mary's situation. I 
felt uneasy in my own mind, believing her to be in a 
family way, I told Mrs. Wentz that I thought she 
ought not to take medicine, I was fearful from the 
way it operated on her, that it would destroy her 
own existence; on telling Mrs. Wentz my opinion, 
she burst into tears, and said she knew w r here that 
would go. Some further conversation took place on 
the subject. On going home she accused Mary of 
that being her situation — Mary did not deny it, only- 
said that she did not know whether it was so or not, 
but did not say it was not. As near as I can recol- 
lect, Mrs. Wentz mentioned to Mr. W entz her sus- 
picions of Mary. A few days after Mrs. Wentz 
called again and told me that Mr. Wentz thought it 



48 



was likely to be the case. Mr. Wentz then desired 
Mrs. Wentz to consult with me how it should be 
kept a secret. I told her I was fearful that it could 
not be done. She said it was very desirable on ac- 
count of herself and her children. I told her that I 
thought it was necessary for the girl to be removed 
out of the house. She said that she would have that 
done as soon as possible. (Here it was stated by 
the witness that much more took place with Mr, 
Wentz, which she considered not necessary to re- 
late.) I proposed her, Mary, going to the country; 
considering its the best way of concealing it. Mrs. 
Wentz said she did not know what part of the coun- 
try to send her to; she said it would not do to send 
her to her native place, on account of Mrs. Wentz's 
people living there; she wished very much to con- 
ceal it from them. It was at length agreed that she 
should remain in the city. I was to look out for a 
private place for her to go to. Mary persisted in 
her determination to go and confess it to her meet- 
ing; I strove hard against that. Mary told me that 
she did confess to the meeting. I told her then it 
would be a matter impossible to keep it concealed. 
At this time she lived at Mr. Morris's in Eighth 
street; she was to remain there till the first of Au- 
gust or September, and then there was a place to be 
provided for her to go. During this time of being 
at Mr. Morris's, she was not to go to Mr. Wentz's 
house at Mr. and Mrs. Wentz's request. I went 
backward and forward from time to time, making 
known the terms on which she might be boarded. 
She, Mary, demanded two months boarding previou~ 
to her confinement. I told Mr. and Mrs. Wentz 
Mrs. Wentz was not willing to pay for board mo 
than one month. I told Mary that I thought thi 
was sufficient. She persisted in demanding the tw 
months. I told her it would not be granted. Sh 
said if they Mr. and Mrs. Wentz did not do as she 
wanted that she would go to the bettering house, 
and give herself up to the overseers of the poor. 



49 



(Here a part of the conversation was not thought ne- 
cessary to relate, it going to show the high terms that 
Mary was disposed to exact beyond what the witness 
considered was right). I went down to Mr. and 
Mrs. Wentz and told them what Mary said she 
would do. Mr. and Mrs. Wentz and myself went 
up into the garret and conversed freely about the 
terms that he was willing to give; Mr. Wentz said 
whatever Mrs. W entz and I thought was right he 
was willing to do. I thought one month's board 
previous to her confinement was sufficient. It was 
then agreed that I should go out towards Schuylkill 
where Mr. Wentz has a house, in order to get her 
accommodated with boarding during her confinement 
— much conversation now took place not necessary 
to state. Previous to my going to Mary Albertson, 
Mr. Wentz requested me to state, that if she persist- 
ed in making demands that was thought unreasona- 
ble, that she might go to the Bettering-house, and 
that he would pay his fine which was three hundred 
dollars and then he would be done with her. I told 
Mary this. (Here again much conversation which 
need not be mentioned.) Mary Albertson then 
agreed that she would save her wages and pay for 
one month herself, and then agreed to the terms that 
Mr. and Mrs. Wentz and myself had concluded to 
do for her. I then returned home and thought that 
the whole plan was settled; I did not go to Mr. Mor- 
ris's for three weeks; in the mean time I was expect- 
ing Mr. Wentz to call upon me to show me the way 
to the place where Mary was to be boarded. He 
did not call. Mary in the mean time became impa- 
tient, went to Mrs. Wentz herself, told Mrs. Wentz 
that I had said that I was tired of the business, and 
also told her that I said, that Mrs. Wentz had said 
she was not willing that any thing should be done for 
her, which I declare was not the truth. Mrs. Wentz 
took very great offence at me, and of course I had 
nothing more to do in the business. There was a 
circumstance took place previous to this, which I 



50 



will now mention: Mrs. Wentz called on me and 
said that she hardly thought that the child was Mr. 
Wentz's, as Mr. Wentz had told her he had never 
had any connexion with Mary Albertson but once. 
I do not recollect my answer to this, but intimated 
to her, that I did not think that that would excuse 
him. 

The witness further states — That Mary Albertson 
repeatedly told her that the child was Mr. Wentz's, 
and no other man's. 

Question by the_ session. Did Mr. Wentz ever 
acknowledge to you that he was criminal with Mary 
Albertson? 

Ans, No otherwise than what is stated, the thing 
appearing to be admitted by his readiness to do every 
thing that was necessary for her, and I never asked 
him the question. 

S^ues. How long have you been acquainted with 
Mary Albertson? 

Ans. About two years. 

§>ues. In conversation with Mary Albertson did 
you consider her to have common intellect? 

Ans. I do consider her to possess common under- 
standing and not deficient. 

§>ues. Did you know her male associates? 

Ans. I knew of none, and never heard her speak 
of any. 

®>ues. What did you think of her piety? 
A?is. She appeared to be pious, but no way bright. 
Suites, Do you know Isaac Burdock^ or any one 
that does know him? 
Ans. No. 

Mr. Wentz's declined putting any questions. 

William Tatem, on the part of the defendant being 
sworn, testifies That Mary Albertson served her 
time with me, bound to me when about four or 
five years of age, and lived with me not less than 
fourteen years, and with respect to her conduct, 
never had any reason to blame her; my wife has the 
same opinion of her, never had a girl in the house 



51 



that behaved better, appearing remarkable for vera- 
city, having never been known to have told a wilful 
falsehood. 

• Question by Mr. Wentz. Do you think she would 
be guilty of taking a false oath? 

Ans. I do not think she would; if she would, she 
has deceived "me. 

The above testimony was taken at this time, be- 
cause the witness was from home, living in New 
Jersey, was very aged, and could not remain with- 
out inconvenience. 



November 9 th, 1819. 

Session met agreeably to adjournment at their room, 
and constituted with prayer. 

Present, 

Revd. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator, 

Messrs. Ralston, Latimer, Jaudon, Brown, Henry > 
Snowden and Smith, Elders. 

Session resumed the consideration of the case of 
Mr. Samuel Wentz, and the following witnesses ap- 
peared and gave testimony. 

Eleanor Hagner, a witness in behalf of the church, 
was sworn and testified, as follows: — When we lived 
next door to Mr. Wentz's, Mrs. Westcott had a 
room in the house with our family, to whom I ob- 
served one day, that in my opinion Mr. Wentz and 
Mary Albertson went out too often together; whose 
reply was, that she thought so herself, and added, 
that she had observed 4t also for a long time — that 
she thought it her duty to speak to both of them con- 
cerning the subject. Mary Albertson shortly after 
came in and expressed great concern about living at 
Mr. Wentz's. Mrs. Westcott then asked what were 
her reasons; to which she made no reply. Mrs. 



52 



Westcott asked her if Mrs. Wentz was the cause 
that produced a desire to go away? — she said no; that 
Mrs. Wentz was very kind to her. After she was 
gone, Mrs. Westcott observed, that she thought she 
came in to open her mind to her, and she thought 
when she came in again she would tell her what was 
the cause that she desired to leave Mf. Wentz's — 
she observed, that she thought Mr. Wentz was the 
cause why she wished to leave there, to which I an- 
swered I thought so myself, and that I thought she 
ought to leave there. At another time Mrs. Westcott 
said to me that she thought it would end in a child 
between Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson; to which 
I answered that I thought so myself, if they con- 
tinued to act as they did. About two months since 
when Mrs. Westcott was at our house, she asked 
concerning Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson; I an- 
swered that according to reports, it turned out as she 
had said last year. Mother being present, she said 
to Mrs. Westcott that she thought she was likely to 
be brought into trouble in consequence of something 
that Mary Albertson had told Mrs. Wentz; to which 
Mrs. Westcott replied, the good-for-nothing thing, 
after they have done as they have done, they now 
want to bring other folks into trouble by it. 

®>iiestion by the session. Who is Mrs. Westcott? 

Ans. A woman who lived in our house, but now 
lives in another place and follows nursing; she is in 
the communion of Mr. Patterson's church. 

£>ues. Were you intimate with Mary Albertson? 

Ans, No otherwise than by seeing her daily. 

§>ues. Were you acquainted with any of her male 
companions? 

Ans. Never have seen any male companions ex 
cept Mr. Wentz, and never heard her speak of an 
one. 

§>i{es. Do you know a person by the name of Isaa 

Burdock? 

Ans. I do not know the man, nor do I know any 



53 



one that does know him; have never heard of the 
name till lately. 

S^ues. Why did you think that Mary Albertson 
ought to leave Mr. Wentz's house? 

Ans. I thought it would lead to worse, though I 
never said any thing to her on the subject. 

ghtes. Do you know any reason why Mrs. West- 
cott thought that Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson 
were too familiar? 

Ans. I know of no reason, other, than I had my- 
self, that they went out too frequently together both 
by day and by night. 

§>ues. What evenings did Mr. Wentz and Mary 
Albertson go out together? 

Ans. Generally on those evenings that there was 
worship either at the one or the other of their places 
of worship. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. Did you ever see me 
go out with Mary Albertson but when my children 
were with me, excepting once? 

Ans. I saw that the children were sometimes 
along but not always. 

Mr. Wentz. Please to mention the night that we 
went out together? 

Ans. I cannot mention the day of the month or the 
week. 

§>iies. Was Mrs. Wentz present at the time of my 
going out with Mary Albertson? 
Ans. She was. 

§>iies. Did you hear Mrs. Wentz or any other 
person say where we went? 

Ans. Yes I heard Mrs. Wentz say that you went 
\ to meeting, but did not mention the place. Mary 
Albertson frequently told me that she wished to get 
Mr. Wentz to go to her meeting, but whether he 
ever did go, I do not not know. 

§>ues. Please to recollect at what time Mary Al- 
bertson went out with me-^when my children were 
not along? 

Ans. I think, if I recollect, that they went out one 
E 2 



54 



Monday afternoon to Kensington — it was to meet- 
ing — I cannot be positive whether the children were 
with them or not. 

§)ues. Do you not know when Mrs. Wentz was 
confined with a child, if she was not in the practice 
of letting Mary Albertson go out one part of every 
Sunday? 

Ans. Yes, while she had a child. 

Shies. Did you say that we went one time to 
Schuylkill together? 

Ans. I say yes you did go together; this informa- 
tion I got from Mary Albertson— -and I know that 
you did go, because I went into Mrs. Wentz's house 
and they were gone. 

Shies. Was this not the time that my cousin was 
down from Lancaster, who accompanied Mary Al- 
bertson and myself? 

Ans. I do not know that she went along, nor do I 
know that she was down at that time — she, the 
cousin, was down at one time, and went across the 
Delaware with Mr. Wentz, Mary Albertson, and 
the children — my sister was also along. Mrs. 
W entz was at this time confined to her chamber. 

The witness further states, That a little less than 
two months since, one evening at Mr. Wentz's 
house in the back parlour, Mrs. Wentz being present, 
Mr. Wentz asked me if I had ever seen any thing 
amiss between him and Mary Albertson: I told him 
that I had seen things amiss — he told me at the same 
time, that he had asked my brother whether he had 
seen any thing amiss between him and Mary Albert- 
son. Mr. Wentz told me that my brother said that 
he had not seen any thing amiss between them; to 
which I answered that he had not so good an oppor- 
tunity of knowing as I had. He asked me at the 
same time, whether, if I was brought before any pro- 
per authority, I could take an oath to what I had 
said: I answered that I could, and would in case I 
was brought before any proper authority and was 
requested to do so — I could take an oath to it. Here 



55 



I ought to mention what I told him what I thought 
was wrong, it was his going out so freqently with 
Mary Albertson. I asked him if he did not think it 
was wrong — he told me yes: at the same time I told 
him that I thought no good would come of it. He 
also at this time had an affidavit which Mary Albert- 
son had taken, and wished me to read it. On my 
refusal to read it, he wished to read it to me himself; 
I told him that I did not wish to read it, nor hear it 
read. 

Grace Bowker, a witness in behalf of the church 
was sworn and testified, That in the month of March 
last Mary Albertson informed me of her situation; 
I then mentioned Mr. Wentz as being the man that 
I suspected, she did not deny it, but said, don't ask 
me. The reason why I named Mr. Wentz, was, 
that she had told a friend of hers who had told me 
that Mr. Wentz had pursued her improperly; I told 
her that I supposed I knew, and she replied that she 
supposed I did: from that time as often as I saw her 
she always spoke as if she had told me that he was 
the person: she also told me that she had acknow- 
ledged before Mrs. Wentz and Mrs. Hagner her 
situation, and that Mr. Wentz was the father of the 
child of which she was pregnant. She told me that 
Mr. Wentz had said that he would comply with any 
terms that Mrs. Wentz and Mrs. Hagner would 
propose. At one time when I called on her, she said, 
that they had provided a place for her out towards 
Schuylkill, on Fine or Spruce-street, where she 
might board during her confinement, and three 
months previous. She was not to go in the name 
of Mr. and Mrs. Wentz as if they were to provide 
for her, but as though the father of the child had left 
the city and had left money in their hands — she had 
calculated that all the expense would be about fifty 
dollars. When I saw her again the people where 
she was to have gone to, refused to take her on the 
terms that was first agreed upon. The next time I 
saw her she was at Mr. Wentz's own hous, she said 



56 



that Mrs. Wentz was looking out for a place to put 
her to board, but I do not know where. I called once 
again but did not see herself but saw Mrs. Wentz, 
who said that she had a place provided for her. 
Mrs. Wentz, I think did not know that I was ac- 
quainted with particulars, and expressed that she 
was very sorry for Mary, as she had been brought 
up in her father's family, and would do what she 
could for her, that she should not suffer. I called at the 
place where Mary was confined, when the gentleman 
who kept the house denied her being there. A person 
who was with me said, that it was the place, and that 
he need not deny it. The person then acknowledged 
thatshe was there, but could not see any person. He 
then sent my name up to Mary, to know if it would 
be convenient to see me, when she answered, no, it; 
would not be convenient to see any person. The 
next evening Mary Albertson called to see me at my 
residence: she wished to know if I was going to at- 
tend the meeting of the session — I told her it would 
be a very painful thing, but if I felt it impressed on 
my mind as being a duty, I should attend it. She 
said that she felt herself guilty and that he was guilty 
also, (understanding her to mean Mr. Wentz) she 
said that she felt as if she did not mind being expo- 
sed, we both deserve it, but for Mrs. Wentz's sake 
and the childrens' sake, she begged that I would not 
appear. I said to Mary Albertson that I understood 
she had cleared him; she replied, yes, and I will, if 
I have to beg my bread from door to door. She said 
she had promised to keep it a secret, and she would. 
I then told her she had better come forward and de- 
clare the truth. She seemed incensed against those 
who had been her friends. I told her she esteemed 
him to be her friend who had been her greatest ene- 
my. She said she supposed that none of us who 
pretended to be her friends, would give her the 
smallest sum to support her, provided she declared 
the truth against him. 



57 



Questions by the session. How long have you been 
acquainted with Mary Albertson? 

Ans. I have known her for six or seven years, hav- 
ing belonged to the same class. 

§>ues. Do you think her to be a person of common 
xmderstanding and not defective? 

Ans. Yes; I have always thought her so, and es- 
teemed her upright and pious. 

®>ues. Do you know Isaac Burdock? 

Ans. I do not. 

§hies. Do you know her male acquaintances? 

Ans. I do know those who were her acquaintances 
as members of the class to which she belonged. 

Question by Mr. Wentz. You have been frequent- 
ly in our house, backward and forward. 

Ans. I have been frequently at your house and 
feel it a painful duty to appear here against you. 

Massey Evans, a witness in behalf of the church, 
was affirmed, and testified, that 

Mary Albertson came into our house and mention- 
ed that she was going to watch-night at the Academy, 
being the 31st of December last, and that Mr. Wentz 
was to come for her at twelve o'clock. Next morn- 
ing she came in and I asked her if Mr. Wentz called 
for her, when she said no, some person came and 
detained him. He set up and waited for her till 
twelve o'clock. She asked me to go into the new 
house which Mr. Wentz was building next door to 
us. Mr. Wentz met us at the door and appeared to 
be very fond of her, taking hold of her, and she of 
him. He took us up into the second story, put his 
hands upon her breast, and asked what she had there, 
and why she kept her bosom so loose. He then put 
his fingers into her bosom, and asked why she kept 
it so loose; she answered, that it was for the purpose 
. of keeping her cotton and her thimble in. He told 
her that she ought to put a drawing string in it and 
draw it up. He then took us up into the third story or 
garret, and told us to see how he had made them 
rooms; he had made them so that the boys and girls 



58 



could get up in the night and go together, unbe- 
known to any body; that nobody would know it.. 
She asked him what the girls wanted to do with the 
boys; she told him that the girls were not so fond of 
the boys. He said, good God! I would not trust 
them. She hit him a slap, and asked him if he was 
not ashamed of himself. 

Question by the session. Do you know Isaac Bur- 
dock? 

Ans. I do not. 

$$ues. Do you know of any male acquaintances of 
Mary Albertson? 

Ans. I do not know oY any. 

§>ues. From all that you have known relative to 
Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson, did you suppose 
there had been or would be illicit commerce between 
them? 

Ans. I did apprehend it and frequently mentioned 
to my husband my fear, who requested me to say no- 
thing about it. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any questions. 

Sarah Gilder, a witness in behalf of the church, 
who being affirmed, testified, that Mary Albertson 
called in the month of April last and requested that 
Mr. Gilder should take her name off the class list. 
She called a second time, and told me that she was 
in a family way, and said if I would forgive her 
she believed the Lord had forgiven her. She appear- 
ed to be in a great deal of trouble. When I aske 
who the father was, and if rhe could not get mar 
ried to him, she said it was a person in the house 
but it was out of the question to get married, tha 
could not be, it was impossible. I asked who woul 
take care of her; she replied, the father would pro 
vide far and take care of her. In both conversations 
she wept bitterly. 

Question by the session. Do you know Isaac Bur- 
dock? 

Ans. I do not — never heard his name until lately. 
Mr. Wentz declined putting any questions. 



59 



. Mary Snyder, a witness in behalf of the church, 
was sworn, and testified, 

That Mary Albertson told her about two years 
since, Mr. Wentz made very free with her, alledg- 
ing that he had a particular regard for her,- when she 
told Mr. Wentz she would be under the obligation 
of leaving his house, when Mr. Wentz said, no, he 
would in future behave better to her. I called on 
Mary Albertson at Mr. Morris's and asked her 
how she could give up to Mr. Wentz, knowing that 
he had a family; she said that she did not know how 
it was, but like Sampson, she was shorn of her 
strength. I then asked how Mrs. Wentz bore it; 
when she answered, she bore it like a christian — had 
she not been a christian, she could not have been 
supported under it. I then told her I thought it was 
better for her to go into the country; when she said 
rio, if she went into the country, Mr. Wentz would 
do nothing for her, as it would be making it known 
among his people. I then spoke to her about a main- 
tainance, and that it was "necessary to swear the child. 
She said no, that she would rather suffer than do so, 
on account of his family. Then she said that both 
Mr. and Mrs, Wentz told her that neither she or the 
child should ever suffer, provided she would keep it 
a secret. 

Questions by the session, Have vou been to see 
Mary? 

Ans, I have not; I called but was not permitted to 
see her. 

§)ues. How long have you known Mary? 

Ans, For eight years, having belonged to the same 
class. She has always supported a good character 
till the present affair. 

®>ues. Do you know of Mary having any male ac- 
quaintances? 

Ans, . I do not. 

glues. Do you know any thing of Isaac Burdock? 
Ans, I do not — never heard of his name till this 
time. 



60 



§>ues, t>\d Mary admit to you that this child was 
Mr. Wentz's? 

Ans, She did; and the impression on my mind al- 
ways was that he was the father. She repeatedly 
mentioned that she would rather suffer than expose 
M.r Wentz's family. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any questions. 

Peter Evans, a witness in behalf of the church, 
who being affirmed, testified, 

That sometime in the last summer, about twilight, 
passing through a ten feet alley running from Eighth 
to Chester-street, he saw Mr. Wentz and Mary Al- 
bertson in company together, which excited astonish- 
ment, and induced me to look round to be satisfied 
that it was them, particularly as we had heard re- 
ports of their walking out together. Never heard 
of the name of Isaac Burdock till he heard of Mary 
Albertson swearing the child to him. 

§>uestio?is by Mr, Wentz, Have we been in the ha- 
bit of speaking to each other when we met? 

Ans, One evening I recollect to have spoken to 
Mr. Wentz, and probably at other times, as to other 
neighbours, but the evening of meeting him in the al- 
ley, I do not recollect to have spoken to him. 

The testimony in behalf of the church is here closed, 

William Hughes, a witness in behalf of Mr. Wentz, 
being affirmed, testified, that 

Since I first heard of the report circulating against 
Mr. Wentz, I vi»ent the evening I heard of it, to the 
neighbourhood where I thought it originated from, 
and went to the house of Peter Evans, I sat down 
in the house and sat a considerable time before I 
said any thing on the subject whatever; the reason 
that I did not say any thing, there were persons 
present in the room; before whom at first I did not 
wish to speak; sitting awhile and reflecting, I found 
they were professors; one belonging to the Metho- 
dist society, and one a Presbyterian — but finding 
there was no way of getting to converse on the sub- 



61 



ject, but in the presence of those persons, I commen- 
ced conversing with Mrs. Evans; Mr. Evans being 
not at home. I asked Mrs. Evans if this report con- 
cerning Samuel Wentz was true; she said it was. 
I asked what evidence she had to show that it was 
true; I told her I wanted her to consider it seriously, 
that it might go to considerable length; after conver- 
sing with her she told me she had no evidence of it 
being a fact, but merely what Mrs. Hagner told 
her. Then I asked her again; Mrs. Evans, you have 
no evidence of its being true, but merely what you 
have heard. Then says she I will speak of it be- 
cause he has injured Peter; it is so, says she, for I 
saw him on my step or my sister did, hugging an 
ordinary girl, and that Mr. Wentz had whipped 
Mrs. Hagner over her son's head, and that Mr. 
Wentz had got Mr. Hagner into difficulty. In order 
to know if what I heard from Mrs. Evans was true, 
I conversed with Mr. Hagner and asked him can- 
didly is it a fact that Mr. Wentz has in any way in- 
jured you or your mother in your dealings with him? 
No, said he. Mr. Wentz has been friendly to me; 
in no instance did he take an advantage of me. I 
then went to Mrs. Evans, who repeated again the 
same thing that she asserted at first; but she went on 
talking at such a rate that I could not get her to 
listen to what I had told her of the falsity that Mr. 
Wentz had taken the advantage of Mr. Hagner. I 
asked Mr. Hagner if it was true what Mrs. Evans 
said about Mr. Wentz hugging an ordinary girl. 
Mr. Hagner told me it was false. In conversing 
with Mrs. Evans I thought it my duty as a member 
of the church to admonish and advise her on the sub- 
ject; I told her she would commit a great sin in let- 
ting her tongue run on so unruly; she toM|»*rie tha*tjfc 
there was such a variance between her^ 
Wentz that she could not help it,d?nd J[J— 
it she had neglected to go forward to^tfrc[coi 
of die Lord's supper. I ende^vourec 
consequences of neglecting^rie congmal 
that occasion, in telling \y 

i 

i 




62 



I told her that I could see that she was wrong, I am 
not, said she; when I directed her to the act of prayer 
she turned it off with a kind of smile. I said many 
more things to her which she treated very indiffer- 
ently. 

Question by Mr. Wentz. What do you think of 
the veracity of Mrs. Evans? 

Ans. I think she speaks hastily, unadvisedly, and 
for which she sometimes may be sorry. 

Questions by the session. Have you any reason 
to believe that Mrs. Evans under the solemnity of 
an oath would not speak the truth? 

Ans. I refer to the testimony which I have given 
as an answer to this. 

Qiies. Do you recollect the time when you first 
called on Mrs. Evans? 

Ans. I do not recollect precisely, but I think it was 
the month of September. 

Ques. Do you know such a person as Isaac Bur- 
dock? 

Ans. I do not — The time which I first heard of 
him or about him, I do not recollect. 

John H. Gartley, a witness on behalf of Mr, 
Wentz, being sworn, testified — That between the 
14th and 18th of September last, I was applied to by 
Mr. Wentz to go with some other respectable citi- 
zens to be present at a declaration to be made by 
Mary Albertson, that he accordingly did on the day 
of the last date accompany Mr. John Green and Mr. 
Wentz to the house of Mr. and Mrs. Kochler in Race- 
street, when they were introduced to the place and 
chamber in which Mary Albertson was confined, and 
at her request I prepared a statement in writing, 
which after being twice read, was subscribed by her, 
ied by Mrs. Kochler, Mr. Green and my- 
statement was afterwards qualified to by 
n^before Peter Christian esq. one of 
theygjjty, and which goes to exone- 
the accusation circulating 
Av^HLthe father of the child of 
ed. Some time after, viz. 

s 




63 



on the 11th day of last month, I was present when 
Mary Albertson, before the same alderman, declared 
on oath that Isaac Burdock of the city of New York 
was the father of the child. Mr. Wentz was very 
desirous that the business should be officially brought 
before the session of the church. Mr. Wentz put 
no question, and none was put by the session. 

Adjourned to meet on Thursday the 11th inst. at 
3 o'clock P. M. Concluded with prayer. 



November 11th, 1819. 
Session met agreeably to adjournment at their room 
and constituted with prayer. 

Present 

Revd. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator, 

Messrs. Robert Ralston, Daniel Jaudon, Thomas 
Latimer, Wm. Brown, Isaac Snowden, Alexander 
Henry and Robert Smith, Elders, 

Session resumed the consideration of the case of 
Mr. Samuel Wentz, when the following witnesses 
appeared and gave testimony, viz. 

Mary Albertson, a witness on behalf of Mr. Wentz, 
being affirmed, testified — (Previous to entering on 
the testimony it was stated by the moderator to Mr. 
Wentz that the witness being produced by him, the 
questions would be put by him. To this he replied, 
that the session would first put their questions, and 
then he would .his.) The following questio^'were 
then put by the session. 
Are you a single woman? 
Ans. I am. 

Shies. Have you had the misfortune to have had a 
child lately? ^ 



Ans. I have. J? 
^ues. Do you know IsaapBurdock? 
Ans. I do. A* 
§>ues. Is he a single niin? ^ . 



64 



Ans. 1 believe he Is. 

§>iies e How long have you known him? 

Ans. Since December last. 

£>iies. What business did he follow? 

Ans. I do not know; he was a foreigner. 

§>ue$. Who are his friends and acquaintances? 

Am. I do not know. 

S^ues. Where did you first meet with him? 

Ans. At Mr. Ballentine's meeting, Spring Garden:* 

£>ues. Does he live in this city now? 

Ans. No; he is not here as I know of. 

<^ues. Where does he live? 

Ans. I believe in New York; he told me he was 
going there. 

S$>ues. When did he tell you he was going to New 
- York? 

Ans. In March last. 

Suites, Where could he be found in New York? 
Ans. I do not know. 

Shies, Did you make no inquiry how a letter could 
he sent to him? 

Ans. No, I did not wish to have any thing to do 

with him. 

Shies. Does he correspond with you now, or have 
you ever received a letter from him? 

Ans. I do not correspond with him, nor have I 
ever received a letter from him; when he went away 
I expected him to be back in July, and suppose his 
motive was to go off entirely, and do nothing for me. 

Shies. How long have you lived with Mr. Wentz? 

Ans. Between eight and nine years. 

S{ues. Did Mr. Wentz ever take any improper 
liberties with you? 

Ans. None at all. 

Shies. Did you ever complain to others that Mr. 
Wentz had taken improper liberties with you? 
Ans. No, to no one. 
Shies. Who is the faiher of your child? 
Ans. Isaac Burdock.' . 

S>ues. When had you the misfortune first to be 
criminally connected v^ith mm? 



65 



Ans. Some time in December. 
§>ue$. How long before this were you acquainted 
with him? 

Ans. A few weeks. 

§>ues. In what place was it? 

Declines an answer. 

The question was repeated, and again declined. 

§hies. W as the same criminal intercourse kept up 
whilst he remained in the city? 

Ans. It was continued till he knew of my situa- 
tion. 

®>ues. Where did you usually meet together? 
Ans. Always at Mr. Ballentine's meeting. 
§>ues. In what manner did you become acquainted; 
who introduced you? 
Ans. No one. 

^ues. Did you become acquainted with him in 
the church or out of the church? 

Ans. When, or after the church was broken up, I 
fell in with him. 

ghies. Did he ever come home with you? 

Ans. Yes. 

Suites. Did he ever go in with you? 
Ans. Once. 

ghees. Who saw him there? 
Ans. No one; the family was gone to bed. 
@hies. Was it customary to leave the door open 
for you? 

Ans. Yes; the candle was left burning above, and 
the door unlocked. 

Suites. Your female companions with whom you 
where intimate, did they go with you to the church? 

A.ns. No; I have no female acquaintances up there. 

§)ues. Did you ever meet him in going to or 
coming from Methodist meeting? 

Ans. Never. 

Shies. Do you know the age of Mr. Burdock? 
Ans. I do not know. 

Shies. What was the appearance of the man? 
Ans. Middle size. , 

§>ues. In the frequent intercourse you had with. 
I" 2 



66 



him did you never ask what were his circumstances, 
or what business he followed? 
Ans. Not at all. 

S^ues. Did he ever promise you marriage? 

Ans,. He did, and it was the second time he came 
home with me; this was before a criminal connexion. 

§>ues. How long before the criminal intercourse? 

Ans. He made it the second or third time he came 
home with me. 

^ues. After the proposal of marriage by him and 
consent on your part to have him, did you not make 
some inquiry relative to his circumstances and cha- 
racter? 

Ans. No I had made none; I had foolishly yielded. 

Ques. Did you at that time not only consent to 
marry him but yielded to him? 

Ans. Yes; and which I believe will ever prove my 
ruin. 

§>ues. After having thus yielded, did you not urge 
him to comply with the promise of marriage? 

Ans. I did so, but not until I discovered myself 
to be in a family way. 

£>ues. When you urged him to marriage what 
was his reply, or how did he treat you? 

Ans. He said that he could not, his circumstances 
were such that he could not marry. 

^ues. It was natural for you to inquire when he 
thus declined, what hib business was? . 

Ans. I did not inquire. 

§>ues. After you found yourself to be pregnant, 
did you not feel the importance of urging him to ful- 
fil his promise, and of pursuing measures to oblige 
him to do it? 

Ans. He treated me so coolly that I wished to have 
nothing more to do with him; and he promised to 
pay my expenses, but did not. 

ghies. Did you not state to Grace Bowker, Mrs. 
Hagner, Mary Snyder, Mr. Gilder, and to your 
sister, that Mr. Wentz was the father of the child? 

Ans. Never; nor did I ever give them reason to 
Suppose this. 



67 



!§>ues. Did not you tell your sister that you had 
cleared Mr. Wentz? 
Ans. No/" 

Slices. Do you not recollect that when you told 
this to your sister, she replied that you have cleared 
him by telling that which is false? 

Ans. No, I do not recollect that I said so. 

§>ues. Did you not tell the females above mention- 
ed, that unless Mr. Wentz would pay for your board, 
that you would swear the child to him? 

Ans. I did not say so, nor any thing like it. 

§>ttes. Did you not say to Grace Bowker or Mary 
Snyder, that you would rather beg your bread than 
expose Mrs. Wentz and her family? 

Ans. I did not say so to them or any other person. 

ghies. Did you not tell them that the father of 
your child was a married man?" 

Ans. I did not. 

§>ues. Did you not tell Mrs. Gilder that the 
father of the child was a person about, or in the 
house where you lived? 

Ans. I did not. 

§>iies. Do you not recollect that you went to Mrs. 
Gilder and made confession of your situation? 

Ans. I did, and do remember what I said. 

£>ues. Have you not made confession of your situ- 
ation to Mrs. Hagner, Grace Bowker and your sister? 

Ans. I did. 

Please to state what you said to them, 
Ans. I acknowledged what my situation was, 
asked them pardon, and requested if any one spoke 
about me to say that she talked about going to the 
country. 

ghies. Did not the persons to whom you had made 
confession of your situation inquire who was the 
cause of it? 

Ans. They did, but I requested they would ask 
nothing about it; I was ashamed to own my intimacy 
with a man with whom I had so short an acquaint- 
ance. 



68 



^ues. Where did you derive the money to defray 
the expenses of your confinement? 

Ans. It was money of my own laying up. 

S^ues. Who provided you lodging before your con- 
finement? 

Ans. Mrs. Wentz spoke for it, but I agreed with 
Mrs. Kochler myself. 

®ues. Why did you leave the house of Mr. 
Wentz last spring? 

Ans. To conceal my situation from my acquaint- 
ances. 

^iies. Had you not confessed before that, to several 
of your acquaintances your situation? 
A?is. I believe not. 

Suites.. How long was it before your confinement 
that you left Mr. Wentz's? 

Ans. I do not recollect, but I was at Mrs. Koch- 
ler's about eight or ten weeks. I went from Mr. 
Wentz's to Mr. Morris's and from Mr. Morris's to 
Mr. Wentz's, and from there to Mrs. Kockler's. 

ghies. Do we understand you that you had not 
made confession of your situation until you went to 
Mrs. Kochler's? 

Ans. Yes, whilst I lived at Mr. Morris's. 

£>ues. What did you mean when you told Mr. 
Gilder that you had committed two bad things? 

Ans. I never told him any such thing. 

^ues. Did not Mr.'Gilder visit you in your con- 
finement? 

Ans. He did visit me, but I made no confession; 
he prayed with me, but conversed very little. 

®>ues. W^hen Mr. Latimer and Mr. Jaudon called 
on you, did you not tell them that if you did not ex- 
pose the father of the child he would do something 
for you? 

Ans. I did, because I expected him here in July 
or x\ugust, and that he would do something for me 
if I did not expose him. 

S^ues. Was that the only reason you had for not 
exposing him? 

Ans. In part, and another reason was that I did 



69 



not wish to let it be known that I had given myselt 
up to a person on so short an acquaintance. 

§hies. Were these the only reasons? 

Arts. They were. 

S^ues. Do you now live at Mr. Wentz's? 
Ans. I do. 

On what terms? 
Ans. For the work that I do. 
§>ues. At what time did Mr. Burdock leave the 
city? 

Ans. It was in March; the latter part. 
Suites. Where did Mr. Burdock board or stay 
when he was in the city? 
Ans. I did not ask him. 

^ues. Did you live at Mr. Wentz's or at Mr. 
Morris's when this unfortunate connexion took place? 

Ans. It was at Mr. Wentz's house. 

§>iies. Mr. Wentz at that time lived in Garden- 
street; did he not? 

Ans. He did. 

§>ues. Were the after meetings with Mr. Burdock 
in the same place? 
Ans. They were. 

Shies. How frequently were you together when 
criminalty took place between you and Mr. Burdock? 
Ans. Never but once. 

It was desired that the question be well considered. 

Ans. I never gave myself up to him (I believe) 
but the once. 

ghies. W T hat did you mean when you said to one 
of your friends I would suffer myself to be burnt 
rather than expose Mr. Wentz and his family? 

Ans. I never said such a word to any body. 

®>ues. As Mr. Burdock frequently came home 
with you from Mr. Ballentine's meeting, did he not 
frequently press you to yield? 

Ans. He. did so, but I never gave myself up to 
him but once. 

§hies. What was the time that you gave yourself 
up to Mr. Burdock? 

Ans. I do not remember rightly, but think it was 



TO 



about the middle of December, believed to be on a 
Wednesday evening. 

ghies. Did you go straight home from meeting that 

evening? 

Arts. I did not; we first took a walk and came 
home late, when the candle was burning up stairs, 
and the door left open. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. Did I come home with 
my brother late in the evening and appear to be an- 
gry at finding Mrs. Wentz and you both up at so 
late an hour? 

Ans. No, you came home early in the evening, 
and that was the only night that your brother came 
to that house. 

§>ues. Do you not know that Mr. and Mrs. Wales, 
Mr. and Mrs. Crese and myself and Mrs. Wentz 
were to take tea with young Mr. Wales? 

A?is. I do, and on that evening Mrs. Wentz and 
her child returned home and set up for Mr. Wentz; 
and I had retired to bed before Mr. Wentz's return. 

^iies. Did Mrs. Wentz ever discover that a blue 
mark was on your neck from a kiss by me, and which 
occasioned an unhappy day between you and her? 

Arts, There was no such mark, and never heard 
any thing about it till Mr. Wentz spoke about it the 
other evening. 

®>ues. Did you ever tell Mrs. Hagner in the pre- 
sence of Mrs. Wentz that you was like for a little 
one, and that it was by me? 

Ans, No; I never did; I acknowledged my condi- 
tion to Mrs. Hagner, but never said any thing about 
the father. 

§>ues. Did Mrs. Gilder tell you, after your situa- 
tion came to be noticed, not to come to meeting? 
Ans. Yes; she did. 

§>ues. And that she would prevail on Mr. Gilder 
to have your name taken off the clast list privately? 

Ans. She did so, that I might after a while come 
in again. 

Ques, Do you think they intended to turn you out 
until the subject was talked about in September? 



71 



Ans. I don't know that I ever was read out; but 
perhaps it may have been. 

The foregoing was read and approved by Mary 
Albertson as all the other testimony has been ap- 
proved by the witnesses. 

Hannah Westcoat, a witness in behalf of Mr. 
Wentz, who being affirmed testified, that 

The case before the session I am acquainted with. 
The credibility of Mrs. Hagner is the part which I 
can testify. I have been intimate with Mrs. Hagner 
for about six years; of which time we lived together 
about three years; her character is that of a talking 
woman; but do not know that she is to be accused of 
falshood? 

Shiestion by Mr. Wentz. From a conversation with 
the sister-in-law of Mrs. Hagner, do you believe her 
to be a mischief-making woman? 

Ans. I do. 

®>ues. Have you not reason to believe that Mrs. 
Hagner has endeavoured to make mischief between 
my wife and myself. 

Ans. I have such reason. 

§nies. Do you not know from Mrs. Hagner, her- 
self, regarding a sermon of the Rev. Mr. Patterson? 

Ans, I do know that Mr. Erringer, having in- 
formed Mrs. Hagner of some words used by Mr. 
Patterson with which he was displeased, Mrs. Hag- 
ner called on Mr. Patterson to inquire what were 
the words which he had used; unwilling as she, Mrs. 
Hagner, said that he should labour under the impu- 
tation of using improper expressions. Mr. Patter- 
son informed Mrs. Hagner what he had said, and 
expressed thankfulness that she had called to give 
him the information. After this Mrs. Hagner in- 
formed me what had passed: this I considered as an 
improper interference, and I told Mrs. Hagner that 
I should not like to have done so. 

§)ues. Did you not occupy a room in Mrs. Hag- 
ner's house at the time of the unfortunate affair of 
Mary Albertson's? 

Ans. Yes*. 



72 



Shies. Do you not think that Mary would have 
been as likely to have told you as to have told Mrs. 

Hagner? 

Ans. I cannot say as to that, but suppose that she 
would not have been more diffident to have told me 
than Mrs. Hagner, as we were in the habit of going 
to church together, both to Dr. Janeway's and to Mr. 

Patterson's. 

Suites. Did you ever tell Mrs. Hagner since you 
left there that you had given up nursing? 
Ans. No, I never did. 

ghies. Do you believe that Mrs. Hagner on her 
oath would be guilty of telling a falshood? 

Ans. I would be afraid to trust her in any thing 
regarding me. 

Ques. Did you ever see any thing improper in 
my family respecting Mary Albertson and myself? 

Ans. Nothing; though frequently I have been in 
the house. 

§>ues. Were you intimate with Mary Albertson? 
Ans. I was. 

ghees. Did you ever hear of the name of Isaac Bur- 
dock mentioned? 
Am, I never did. 

Aaes. Did you ever make any remarks, relative to 
Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson walking together? 

Ans. Never; I saw them together but once, in go- 
ing to church, and then I went with them myself, 

^iies. Do you believe Mrs. Hagner to be a pious, 
good woman? 

Ans. I must leave this to the Almighty; she pro- 
fesses to be a good woman. 

John Green, a witness in behalf of Mr. Wentz, 
who being affirmed testified, that 

My acquaintance with Mr. Wentz has been about 
eight months; during which time I had considered 
him an upright, worthy man. He also has known 
Mary Albertson, and considered her a good, pious 
girl. Mr. Wentz made him acquainted of a report 
circulated against him as the father of Mary Al- 
bertson's child, and asked me to accompany him to 



73 



see Mary Albertson; that I went in company with 
Mr. Gartley and Mr. Wentz, and in their presence 
heard Mary Albertson say, that Mr. Wentz was 
not guilty of the charge laid against him; that he 
never had any intercourse with her in an unbecom- 
ing manner, nor had ever offered her any insult. Mr. 
Gartley inquired of Mary Albertson if she had ever 
known Mr. Wentz to offer an insult to any female? 
to which she replied, never. Mary Albertson stated, 
that she might with more propriety swear the child 
to Mr. Evans than to Mr. Wentz, because the for- 
mer went with her to meeting on the night on which it 
happened. Mr. Gartley then inquired if she was wil- 
ling to declare on paper what she had related to them 
— to which she replied, that she was, being desirous 
of doing any thing that would clear them of the 
charge. She likewise said, that she did not wish any 
one to come and disturb her in her present weak 
state; but that in a w T eek or two she would be willing 
to see any one and give all the satisfaction she could. 
The declaration was then committed to paper, sub- 
scribed by her, and witnessed by Mr. Gartley and 
myself. I was present when Mary Albertson swore 
the child to Isaac Burdock. Mary Albertson, at the 
first interview, stated that she did not like to expose 
the father of the child, because she hoped that he 
would return and marry her, or do something for her. 

^iiestion by the session. Did Mary Albertson say 
any thing about the occupation of Isaac Burdock? 

Ans. She did not; but said (I think) that he lived 
or belonged to New York. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

The next witness offered by Mr. Wentz, was Mrs. 
Wentz, who being considered, from the connexion 
between husband and wife to be unusual, produced 
a hesitation as to the propriety of admitting the wit- 
ness; it was however finally determined, that under 
the peculiar circumstances of the case, that Mrs. 
Wentz should be heard, and information was given 
to Mr. Wentz accordingly. 

G 



74 



Mr. Wentz took exception to the hesitation of ad- 
mitting Mrs. Wentz, and alleged, that the trial had 
been partial. 

Upon requiring Mr. Wentz to specify the particu- 
lars of the charge made upon the session, he for a 
time declined, but being urged to make the specifi- 
cation, he said, that questions put by him to some 
of the witnesses had been arrested. To this it was 
replied, that every proper question proposed by him 
had been admitted, and none was rejected but only 
such as was manifestly not connected with, or having 
a. bearing on the trial; that now the offer was made 
to him, to bring forward again any witness, that he 
wished to have questions put to, or to reconsider any 
part of the trial, that he could point out had been 
conducted with partiality; both of these propositions 
he declined acceding to. 

Mr. Gartley again appeared before the session and 
testified, that two things operated on his mind, to 
satisfy him of Mr. Wentz's innocency; that the 
greatest harmony prevails in Mr. Wentz's family. 
The other was, the great anxiety of Mr. Wentz to 
compel Mary Albertson to declare on oath who was 
the father of the child. Mr. Wentz requested me 
to consult a lawyer and a guardian of the poor, whe- 
ther Mary Albertson could be compelled to swear 
the child. This was accordingly done, and the re- 
sult appeared to be, that unless Mary Albertson had 
become chargeable or was likely to become charge- 
able, she could not be compelled to declare who was 
the father of the child. Mr. Wentz invariably dis- 
covered his great anxiety that Mary Albertson should 
declare on oath who was the father of the child. Mr. 
W^entz also informed me that the reason why Mary 
Albertson was unwilling to expose the father, was, 
that she entertained a hope that he would come back, 
in the spring, and do justice, or be likely to marry 
her. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. From your knowledge of 
Mrs. Wentz, do you think she would do for Mary 



75 



Albertson as she did, supposing me to be the father 
of the child? 

Ans. From my knowledge of Mrs. Wentz, and 
the intimacy I have in the family, I believe that in- 
stead of befriending her, she would feel the greatest 
animosity, and would not be willing to let her into 
the house, or into her presence. 

§>ues. Are you certain that the word Mary was^ 
used by Mr. Wentz? 

Ans. I am certain, and that it was repeated in se- 
veral circumstances as above stated. Mrs. Wentz 
also, in several conversations I had with her, stated, 
that she believed it was the reason why Mary Al- 
bertson declined swearing the child, and that she 
was also well persuaded of Mr. Wentz's innocence. 
This was declared to me in the absence of Mr. 
Wentz. 

Mr. Wentz stated that he declined offering Mrs. 
Wentz's testimony. 

Peter Christian esq. a witness in behalf of Mr. 
Wentz, who being sworn, testified — That at the 
request of Mr. Wentz I went with him to the resi- 
dence of Mary Albertson, to whom a written decla- 
ration was handed, read, and afterwards qualified to 
by her, stating that Mr. Wentz was not the father 
of the child of which she had been delivered. On 
the 11th of October, at the request of Mr. Wentz I 
again attended Mary Albertson, who made oath 
that Isaac Burdock of the city of New York was the 
father of the child. 

ghiestion by Mr. Wentz. Is there any forgery in 
either of these papers. 

Ans, None to my knowledge. 

§>ues. Have you any reason to believe that I am 
the lather of the child? 

Ans. I have none. On the contrary, from the 
affidavit of the young woman, I should believe Isaac 
Burdock was the father of the child. 

§>ues. Do you believe from your knowledge of 



76 



my wife, that she would receive Mary Albertson int© 
the house, if she . thought I was the father of the 

child? 

Ans. I should say, from my knowledge of other 
women under such circumstances, that she would 
not, and that other gentlemen could judge of that 
question as well as myself. From all the circumstan- 
ces which have come to my knowledge, I should 
give it as my opinion, that Mr. Wentz was not the 
father of the child, particularly from the manner of 
the young woman at the time of taking her affidavit. 

^iies. Did you ever know of, or see any improper 
conduct in me? 

Ans. Never. I was told by Mr. Wentz that he 
had heard, or that he had understood, that the father of 
the child was a methodist preacher. As far as I have 
known Mr. Wentz, I have never heard of any thing 
in any way to his disadvantage. 

This testimony was read over and approved, as 
also the preceding testimony, since the former mi- 
nute, to this effect. Mr. Wentz having stated, that 
he had no other testimony to offer, the moderator 
informed him that the session would now hear what 
he had to say on the occasion, and continue at the 
present time, or meet again for the purpose, to 
which he replied, that he had nothing further to offer 
here, but left the matter for the decision of the 
session. 

The question was put to Mr. W entz if he was 
satisfied with the proceedings of the session to this 
time; to which he replied, that he was not. The 
moderator then desired that would state the particu- 
lars in which he considered himself agrieved, and if 
it was possible redress would be afforded him. This 
offer however was declined by him. 

Adjourned to meet on Saturday afternoon the 
13th instant, at 4 o'clock. 

Concluded with prayer. 



37 



November 13th 1819. 

Session met agreeably to adjournment at their room 
and constituted with prayer. 

PRESENT. 

Rev. Dr. J. J. Janeway Moderator^ 

Messrs. Ralston, Jaudon, Latimer, Brown, Hen- 
ry, Smith and Snowden, Elders, 

Session proceeded to the farther consideration of 
the case of Mr. Samuel Wentz. 

Lydia Hart — a witness to testify to the character 
of Mary Snyder being affirmed, answered as follows: 

Suites, How long have you known Mary Snyder? 

A?is. Ever since she has been eight years of age. 
I brought her up — lived with me about twenty-three 
years. 

§>ues. How long since she left your family? 
Ans.. In May last. 

S^ues. What is her general conduct? 

Ans. Correct, qnite correct — strictly honest; nei- 
ther directly or indirectly would she tell an untruth. 
I believe her to be particularly careful in that re- 
spect. 

ghies. Do you esteem her to be a pious girl. 

Ans. I do believe her to be such. 

§hies. While she lived with you every confidence 
was put in her? 

Ans. It was, as much as in my own children, if not 
more. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any questions. 

Frederick Erringer — a witness to testify to the 
character of Elizabeth Hagner, being affirmed an- 
swered as follows: 

Qixes. How long have you known Mrs. Hagner? 

Ans. For near two years personally, though I 
have been longer acquainted with her. 

ghies. Do you esteem her a pious person? 

Ans. I do. 

Shies. Do you think we may safely depend upon 
her word and affirmation? 

G 2 



78 



Ans. I do. She bears an excellent character as a 
professor of religion in our church. She stood very 
high when she was admitted, and continues to stand 
high in our estimation. 

§>ues. Is she considered as a busy body, capable 
of raising an evil report of her neighbour? 

Ans. She is not: on the contrary she is considered 
to be rather retired; she might be more useful if she 
was more forward. 

§>ues. Is she a great talker? 

Ans. No. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

John Rorer jr. — a witness to testify to the cha~ 
racter of Elizabeth Hagner, being sworn, answered 
as follows: 

§hies. How long have you known Elizabeth Hag- 
ner? 

Ans. Since she has been a member of our church, 
which is about two years. Her general character I 
have known for ten or twelve years, which was al- 
ways considered to be that of a good character. 

§hies. Do you esteem her a pious woman? 

Ans. I do, both from my own acquaintance and 
what I have heard from others. 

§hies. Do you think her word may safely be de- 
pended upon? 

Ans. I do, never having heard, or found any 
thing to the contrary. 

^ites. Do you consider her as a busy body, or 
one who would raise an evil report? 

Ans. I do not. I always heard her spoke well of. 

^ues. Have you ever heard of her having a quar- 
rel with any one? 

Ans. Never. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 
George W. Mentz — a witness to testify to the cha- 
racter of Elizabeth Hagner, who being affirmed 
answered as follows: 

S^ues. Do you know Elizabeth Hagner, and how 




79 



Ans. I do, and it is about eighteen months since I 
first became acquainted with her. 

S^ues. Do you esteem her a pious person? 

Ans. I have always considered her to be strictly 
pious since I have become personally acquainted 
with her. 

§>ues. From your knowledge of her do you consi- 
der her word and affirmation may be safely relied 
upon? 

Ans. I do. Ever-since I have known her, she has 
appeared to me such a person as I should be glad to 
see all the members of the church, and other persons 
to be equal to her in zeal and piety. 

Have you ever found her of a contentious 
or fault-finding temper? 

Ans. No. I have never found her contentious or 
speaking evil of any one. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

Margaret Whiteman—a witness to testify to the 
character of Massey Evans, being sworn, answered 
as follows: 

£hies. Do you know Massey Evans? 

Ans. I do, and have been intimately acquainted 
with her for about six years. 

ghies. From what you know of her, do you con- 
sider that her testimony may be relied upon? 

Ans. I do believe that it may be relied upon. 

Sillies. Is she a professor of religion? 

Ans. She is a member of the methodist church 
worshiping at the Academy. 

Shies. What is your opinion of her piety? 

Ans. I believe her to be a just and upright woman, 
but cannot say much about her piety. 

£htes. Has she been a talking woman? 

Ans. She is* a woman of poor education — and 
believe her to be* good hearted person, who would 
not injure any person. 

^iiestions by Mr. Wentz. Do you not know that 
she has been suspended from church privileges in 
consequence of bad behaviour in the neighbourhood? 



80 



Ans. Not as I know of or remember to have heard. 

Shies. Do you know if she is in the communion 
of the church now? 

Ans. I am pretty certain that she is. 

Jacob Walter — a witness to testify to the charac- 
of Massey Evans, who being affirmed, answered as 
follows: 

§>ues. Do you know Massey Evans? 

Ans. I have known her for several years, both be- 
fore marriage and since. 

£>ues. Have you known her intimately? 

Ans. I have known her as a member of the society. 

Suites. Do you believe from all that you know of 
Mrs. Evans, or have heard of her, that her testimo- 
ny may be fully relied upon? 

Ans. I have no doubt of it in my mind. I would 
have full confidence in her. I have never seen any 
thing to induce me to think otherwise. 

Suites. Is she a member in the communion of the 
church at this time? 

Ans. She is — I have no doubt on my mind but she 
is, having never heard of her being suspended from 
church privileges. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

Margaret Artest — a witness to testify to the cha- 
racter of Massey Evans, who being affirmed, answer- 
ed as follows: 

Shies. How long have you known Massey Evans? 

Ans. Better than five years. 

Shies. Does she belong to the same society with you? 

Ans. She does, she belongs to the Academy. 

S^ues. Do you believe that on giving testimony 
Mrs. Evans would tell the truth? 

Ans. I do believe it; I never knew her to be guilty 
of falsehood. 

^uestion by Mr. Wentz. Do you know Mary 
Albertson? 

Ans. I know her by sight. 

Elizabeth Culp, a witness to testify to the charac- 
ter of Grace Bowker, who being affirmed — answered 
as follows: 



si 



§>ue$. Do you know Grace Bowker, and how long? 
Ans. I do, for six years and better. 
$>ues. Do you esteem her as a woman of piety? 
Ans. Yes. 

§>ues. Do you believe if she was called to give 
testimony, she would say nothing but the truth? 
Ans. Nothing but the truth. 

ghies. Do you know if she is in the communion 
of the church and in good standing? 

Ans. She is as far as I know, she lived two years 
or better with me in the same house; this is four 
years ago, since when she has continued to act cor- 
rectly. Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

Abigail Smith, a witness to testify to the character 
of Grace Bowker, who being affirmed — answered as 
follows: 

Ques. Do you know Grace Bowker? 

Ans. I do for between two and three years. 

§>iies. Do you esteem her a woman of piety? 

Ans. I do believe her to be such, 

S^ues, Is it your opinion that she would speak the 
truth if called to give testimony? 

Ans. I do believe she would; I know nothing to 
the contrary. 

§>ues. Is she in the communion of the church and 
in good standing? 
. Ans. Yes. 

Mr. Wentz declined putting any question. 

John Sloan, a witness to testify to the character 
of Eliza Albertson, who being sworn — answered as 
follows: 

^ues. Do you know Eliza Albertson? 
Ans. I do; I have known her for about two years. 
®)ues. Do you consider her a person of piety? 
Ans. I do as far as I have had any acquaintance 
with her. 

Shies. Do you believe her to be a person of truth? 
Ans. I do. 

§>ues. Would you place full confidence in her de- 



82 

claration under the solemnity of an oath or affirma- 
tion? 

Ans. I would, having never known her to be guilty 
of falsehood. 

®hies. Has she always been spoken of favourably 
by others, as far as has come to your knowledge? 

Ans. She has, she lived in a house where I spent 
a part of my time for several months, and the people 
were sorry to part with her; the mistress in particular, 

Ques. Is she in the communion of the church? 

Ans. I believe she is. 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. Did you know the 
reason why Eliza Albertson left Mr. Murphey's? 

Ans. The duty of the house was heavy; the mis- 
tress was from home, and an old lady in the house 
with whom she did not well agree, were the induce- 
ments (after Mrs. Murphey's return) for leaving the 
family. 

Qites. Did not Mr. Murphey complain that she 
did not keep her door locked at night? 
Ans. No. 

Suites. Did not Mr. Murphey say that she was too 
free with the boys? 

Ans. I never heard him say so; nor did I observe 
it myself. 

Ques. Are you acquainted with Mary Albertson, 
the sister of Eliza Albertson? 

Ans. I have seen and spoke with her, but not 
intimately acquainted. 

Sarah Wentz, a witness on the part of Mr. Wentz 
being affirmed, testified — answered as follows: 

Questions by Mr. Wentz. Did you ever call on 
Mrs. Hagner and say that there was something wrong 
in our family? 

Ans. No never; Mrs. Hagner came to me and 
said what ails Polly? The answer was this, it is un- 
known to me; Polly has been complaining for a year 
or eighteen months. Mrs. Hagner said that Polly 
told her she must send for the doctor. Polly then 
said to me, will you send to Dr. Perkins and let him 



88 

come to see me. I went for the doctor at Polly's 
request; the doctor came; she was in the parlour a 
scrubbing; what passed between her and the doctor 
I did not hear, and do not know, but at this time I 
was perfectly innocent of knowing what was the mat- 
ter. 

ghies. Did you ever discover a blue mark on Pol- 
ly's neck? 

Ans. Never. The evening that Mr. Wentz 
brought home his brother, I was not at home, I was 
in at Mr. Wales', and they came home at seven 
o'clock, Mr. Jonathan Wentz had business at Mr. 
Bender's, who asked his brother to accompany him 
there, they both returned between nine and ten 
o'clock. I was in then at Mr. Wales'; Mr. Wales 
went in and brought Mr. Wentz and his brother in 
to take a drink with him, after being there a short 
time, about half an hour, I returned home with my 
child, it being fretful; after my getting home Polly 
lighted a candle and retired to bed, leaving a door in 
the alley open for Mr. Wentz; between ten and eleven 
o'clock or near eleven, Mr. Wentz and his brother 
returned from Mr. Wales', after this a candle was 
lighted for Mr. Wentz to show his brother to bed 
immediately after this I took the child out of the cra- 
dle and followed them up stairs. Mr. Wentz came 
out of his brother's room and we both went to bed 
together. I understand that Mrs. Hagner has sta- 
ted before the session, that a consultation was held 
in the garret between her, Mr. Wentz and myself. 
We never had such conference together as it regards 
Mr. Wentz; when she came up to the garret I was 
folding, my clothes, she sat down on the bed side, I 
finished folding my clothes; we conversed upon dif- 
ferent subjects, principally relating to different 
churches; after finishing my work I sat down along 
side of her. The subject then turned upon Folly; 
Mrs. Hagner observed that she had been to see her 
that morning; I asked how Polly was, she said that 
she appeared very low spirited; I asked from 



84 



what cause, had any thing new taken place; she said 
that Polly told her that the man had gone off; said I 
has she got nothing from him? Mrs. Hagner then 
replied that she said she had not got a cent. Polly 
says that she is doubtful if she has got enough to 
support herself through her confinement; she was 
apprehensive she would have to go to the Bettering- 
house. The answer I then made was, if she has 
been such a fool as to let him go off without getting 
any thing from him, she must abide the consequence; 
likewise I said that she had better to do that than to 
suffer. At this time Mr. Wentz was at the head of 
the second stairs. Mrs. Hagner said to me, you are 
called, I then got up and went down, when Mr. 
Wentz said, Mr. Kempton's house-keeper wants to 
see you. Mrs. Hagner then followed me down; 
Mr. Wentz having come no further up the stairs, 
and this is the last conversation which ever passed 
between Mrs. Hagner and I, respecting Mary's situa- 
tion. 

Question by Mr. Wentz. Did you ever tell Mrs. 
Hagner that you believed the child to be mine? 

Ans. I never told Mrs. Hagner so, neither directly 
or indirectly. 

Shies, Did you ever say in a flood of tears, that 
you knew where it would end? 

Ans. Never; for I never thought that it belonged 
to you. 

Shies. Did I ever mention to you that I had had 
connexion with Mary once? 

'Ans. Never; I no more thought so than an infant 
of a week old, if I had ever thought that Mr. Wentz 
had a connexion with her, she should never have been 
continued about my house. 

ghtes. Did you ever hear me say that if Mary 
would not comply with your and Mrs. Hagner's re- 
quest, that I would pay my three hundred dollars? 

Ans. Never. 

ghies. What conversation took place between you 



85 



and Mrs. Hagner, relative to providing a place lor 
Mary? 

Ans. Mrs. Hagner spoke to me on this subject, 
offering her services, at the request of Mary to pro- 
vide a place for Mary, but I never applied to her. 
About one month before Mary's confinement, she, 
Mary, came and said that she did not know what to 
do for a place, and said Madam will you hunt me a 
place, saying I have not the heart to look out for 
myself. Then I replied I don't know that I shall. 
The reason is this: you have acted in so base and so 
gross a manner towards your Maker in making a 
profession of religion and acting the part of a hypo- 
crite, that I do not know I can do any thing for you. 
Then she replied you are the only friend in this place 
that I can call upon, and observed if you won't, I am 
tempted many times to make way with myself; then 
I began to reflect upon what I said to her, and told 
her (apprehending that she might make way with 
herself) that I would do what I could in getting her 
a place, I then asked how she was provided for, her 
reply was I have provided for myself, says I how, 
or in what way; Mary replied out of my own earn- 
ings; she observed I had some money when I left 
your house, (and which I know to be the case) and 
with what I have been able to save up since, she 
said she thought she would be able to bear her ex- 
penses; she then asked to be permitted to stay until 
I could get her a place; to this I consented and the 
Tuesday following I went in search of a place for her, 
and procured one at Mrs. Kochler's. On the next Sab- 
bath day evening she went to this place, and there 
she stayed during her confinement. There never was 
any conversation between Mrs. Kochier and me re- 
specting what was to be paid per week, not till some 
time after she was confined. One day when I was 
at Mrs. Kochler's, she said 1 hardly got paid for my 
trouble. I then asked what does Polly pay you, she 
said four dollars per week for three weeks, or four 



and a half, and I cannot say positively which it was, 
and a dollar and a half before and after per week. 

The above was read to Mrs. Wentz and approved 
by her as correct. All the preceding testimony was 
read to the respective witnesses and approved by 
them as correct. Adjourned to meet on Tuesday 
next the 16th inst. at 4 o'clock P. M. Concluded 
with prayer. 

November 16th, 1819. 
Session met agreeably to adjournment at the school 
room, and constituted with prayer. 

Present, 
Rev. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator, 

Messrs. Ralston, Latimer, Jaudon, Brown, Henry, 
Snowden and Smith, Elders* 

Session proceeded to the further consideration of 
the case of Mr. Samuel Wentz. Mr. Wentz ap- 
peared and being called upon to produce other wit- 
nesses on his part, he answered that he had no more 
witnesses to produce. Mr. Wentz was then inform- 
ed that the session were ready to hear him in his de- 
fence until he should be satisfied; when he stated 
he had nothing further to offer. 

The deposition of Mary Conrad 'being read and it 
appearing to be hearsay evidence, It was on motion 
resolved, that the said deposition of Mary Conrad 
be stricken out, and that it form no part of the testi- 
mony in this case. 

The session then proceeded to read the testimony 
of the other witnesses, and after some conversation 
on the subject, agreed to adjourn to meet on Thurs* 
day next the l«th inst. at 3 o'clock P. M. 

Concluded with prayer. 



87 



November 18th, 1819. 
Session met agreeably to adjournment, and constitu- 
ted with prayer* 

Present, 
Rev. Dr. J. J. Janeway, Moderator, 

Messrs. Ralston, Latimer, Jaudon, Brown, Henry, 
Snowden and Smith, Elders. 

The session resumed the consideration of the case 
of Samuel Wentz, and the question being put, is he 
guilty or not guilty of the charge exhibited against 
him, they unanimously decided that he was guilty. 
The sentence of the session was expressed as fol- 
lows, viz. 

The session in declaring their judgment on the 
case before them, think proper to state, that this 
trial, to which they have been impelled by a sense of 
duty, they have endeavoured to conduct in an " open 
fair, and impartial" manner; they have through 
long and tedious sittings patiently persevered in 
hearing numerous witnesses, and in taking their 
voluminous testimony; they have treated the accu- 
sed with all tenderness, and granted him every rea^ 
sonable indulgence; they have allowed him freely to 
exercise the right secured to him by the constitution 
of our church, of being present at the examination 
of the witnesses, and of proposing all proper ques- 
tions tending to his exculpation; they have heard 
and recorded the testimony of every witness brought 
forward by him; and now, having finished the trial, 
the session would, if they could conscientiously do it, 
rejoice to pronounce the accused innocent; but after 
carefully comparing the conflicting testimonies, and 
duly considering the number, character and circum- 
stances of the witnesses on both sides, together with 
the nature of the testimony delivered by each, they 
are constrained in the fear of God to declare their 



88 



judgment, that the charge has been substantiated; 
and the session do, therefore, unanimously pronounce 
Mr. Samuel Wentz guilty of the crime of illicit com- 
merce with Mary Albertson, and of being the father 
of the child of which she has been lately delivered. 
They do moreover, exclude the said Samuel Wentz 
from the sealing ordinances of the church, until he 
shall have given satisfactory evidence of repentance 
of this great and heinous sin. 

The above sentence being read in the presence of 
Mr. Wentz, he answered that he appealed from this 
decision to the Presbytery. 

Concluded with prayer. 

I do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a true copy of the 
minutes of session. 

ROBERT SMITH, Clerk 



85 



The record of the Session having 1 been gone through, 
Mr. Thomas Bradford, junr. then rose and ad- 
dressed the Presbytery, 

Mr. Moderator, 

I appear as the advocate of the appellant, and it 
is incumbent on me to state how I came into the 
case, and why I accepted the duty. The appellant, 
unknown to me personally, applied in the early part 
of this year, for my opinion on his case, with a re- 
quest that I would serve him as his counsel, and left 
his papers for my examination. I declined giving him 
any answer until I should have attentively perused 
and considered them. 

When I read the names of the respectable bre- 
thren who constituted the session of his church, men, 
most of whom I love and respect, and with whom I 
delight to interchange the offices of brotherly affec- 
tion, I gave to the case the most careful and dis- 
criminating investigation I was able. Had I consulted 
my personal feelings, it would have been most con- 
genial to them to have remained silent, but as i con- 
scientiously believed from the most attentive scrutiny, 
that the evidence adduced, did not establish the guilt 
of Mr. Wentz, I considered he had a right to as- 
sistance, in a case, which is of vital importance to his 
character as a christian, a father, a husband, and a 
good citizen; as I considered it to be the pride and 
the boast of our admirable form of church govern- 
ment, that the decisions of one judicatory, however 
respectable its members, may be reviewed, and as the 
appellant was unable to manage his own case, I con- 
sented to undertake it for him. And although the 
case is of some length and presbytery have been 
considerably occupied, yet I ask their patient and 
candid attention, because the purity of the adminis- 
tration of justice requires it, because the character 

H 



86 



and happiness of the individual and his family are 
concerned, and because the honour of this presbytery 
is involved in the correctness of the decision now to 
be made. 

I consider the case now before the judicature, not 
as a suit between the session of the Second Presbyte- 
rian Church and Mr. Wentz, but as it really is, an 
appeal from their judgment. I have only now to do 
with the evidence, and this presbytery are called upon 
to examine this evidence upon its merits, and not to 
be swayed in their decision by the character or re- 
spectability of this session. 

It is well known to all, that the best judges that 
ever lived have erred in judgment— the most en- 
lightened juries have given wrong verdicts — I there- 
fore meet the case on this appeal unfettered by pre- 
judice. 

The appellant is a man whose character until this 
charge was made, was unimpeached — he is the father 
of ten children, five of whom are still alive, and his 
wife is still a member of the church, from whose 
communion her husband has been excluded for a 
crime, which, if true, dissolves the nuptial bond, tears 
asunder all the ties of conjugal affection, and consigns 
him to disgrace. 

I here disclaim any design to say any thing to 
wound the feelings of the respectable brethren of the 
session, and if in the warmth of argument, any ex- 
pression may escape my lips that may seem to have 
that tendency, it must be ascribed to the fervor of 
debate, and not to any design to offend. 

There are some elementary principles that I here 
propose, which I presume will not be controverted. 

Every man is presumed to be innocent until he is 
proved guilty. 

Hearsay evidence is not admissable to convict any 
person of an ofFence. 

The most fatal consequences would result from 
the adoption of the principle, that a man may be con- 
demned on hearsay evidence. No man's property. 



87 



liberty or life, would be safe for a single moment- 
even the respectable brethren of session, nay, the re- 
verend moderator himself, might fall the victim of 
an atrocious calumny. Once let this doctrine be ad- 
mitted, and Mr. Wentz's case may be mine, if I had 
an enemy capable of entertaining so much malignity. 
Dear to me as is my native land, and affectionately 
as I love my brethren of the church, I would re- 
tire from them both, and seek in foreign climes 
and amongst strangers, a security which would be 
denied me here. But no — I am convinced this pres- 
bytery will never sanction such a principle, and I 
feel confident that their vote on this appeal, will verify 
my anticipation. 

I will now take up the testimony and examine it 
in an order, that I think most likely to bring us to a 
satisfactory and just conclusion. 

[A few words fell from some members of the pres- 
bytery, as to the proper mode of proceeding in the 
remarks upon the evidence, upon which the moderator 
desired Mr. Bradford to go on in his own xvay, 
whereupon he proceeded."] 

John Gilder is the first witness on the part of the 
church. His testimony relates to what Mary Al- 
bertson told him of this, that, and the other circum- 
stance; but was she under oath then? No: Nor was 
Mr. Samuel Wentz present, when any of these con- 
versations took place. The witness does not testify 
to any conversation he ever had with Mr. Wentz 
the appellant, or any confessions made by him, or to 
any circumstances connected with the transaction. 
All he pretends to know or say is, what Mary told 
him, and this is not testimony against the appellant. 

[Mr. Bradford here read and commented as he 
went along, upon what Mr. Gilder had testified on 
behalf of the church.] 

" That Mary Albertson belonged to the same reli- 
" gious society with the witness, and to a class of 



88 



* £ which he was the leader — the first of his knowing 
" Mary's situation, was last spring, when she called 
u on the witness, and mentioned her desire to with* 
" draw from the society; he expostulated with her, to 
tc consider the propriety of the measure, and parted; 
" she called again in about two weeks, and expressed 
*' the same desire, adding, that she had done some- 
u thing that was very bad; after the witness had left 
" the house, Mary Albertson informed his wife what 
a was her situation." 

The whole of this matter is mere hearsay, and 
the last sentence not only mere hearsay, but hearsay 
at second hand. How could the witness be listened 
to, when he was repeating what his wife told him, 
what Mary told her, in his absence. But to proceed": 

" Some months after this, he saw Mary Albertsoa 
u in the room where she was confined with her child; 
u she expressed her satisfaction that he thought so 
u well of her as to come and see her, he expressed a 
tf regret that she had brougnt herself into that situa- 
a tion, having had a good opinion of her piety; at 
u this she wept; he asked her, whether Mr. Wentz 

was the father of her child, to which she requested, 
4< that question might not be put to her; this was in 
" a flood of tears." 

All this time the witness is drawing an inference 
from her tears and her answer, that Mr. Wentz was 
the father, because she does not confess that which 
she knew was not true, and which she had contra- 
dicted upon her solemn oath. The witness goes on, 
and 

44 Asked who supported her there, to which she 
" also requested, she might not be asked that ques- 
" tion; he then spoke to her on the subject of the 
fct oath she had taken, and considering what she had 
" said to other persons; she observed she had done 
" more than one bad thing; when he replied, that he 
a thought the last was worse than the first, having 



89 



" reference to the oath, and which she had (as he 
" believes) also." 

Because Mary Albertson said, she had done more 
than one bad thing, he infers that she admitted, that 
she had taken a false oath, in swearing her child to 
Isaac Burdock. This inference does not necessarily 
follow, and ought to have no weight upon the minds 
of the brethren. 

<4 He then asked her if she had not told Grace 
" Bowker, that Mr. Wentz had been following her 
u for some time, and if she had not advised her to 
u leave Mr. Wentz's house; she answered no — but 
u that she had told Mary Snyder so." 

Here follows a question by the session, " whether 
a the witness had any difficulty in getting access to 
fct Mary Albertson." 

What has that question to do with Mr. Wentz, 
unless they could show that Mr. Wentz prohibited 
Jhim from having access to her. 

Again the answer — w not at the first time, but 
ce when he called a second time, was refused, this 
M was in company with Mr. Walters. §>ues» Was 
" there any reason given that she could not be seen? 
44 A?i$. A black girl went up stairs and returned, 
" saying, that Mary Albertson would see no one at 
" that time." 

This may all be very true, but, is such testimony 
to bear against Mr. Wentz. Let him be judged by 
the facts, and not by unfounded inferences — and 
what a servant may say in a message sent by hen 
Such circumstances may be made to bear against any 
one of us, and occasion a coolness, and perhaps a rup- 
ture in our friendship, by an improper denial by a 
servant of my being at home, when a friend may 
call at my door on a visit to me, which I should have 
been happy to accept. 

Then follows a series of questions put by the ap~ 
h 2 



90 



pellant, (Mr. Wetitz) which are immaterial; but that 
I may not be supposed to suppress any part of the 
testimony, I will read the whole. 

[Mr. Bradford read the evidence, and then dis- 
missed the testimony of this witness,'] 

The charge preferred is, that the appellant had il- 
licit commerce with Mary Albertson, and that he 
was the father of a child, of which the said Mary 
had been lately delivered. 

To support this charge, it is not sufficient for a 
witness, however respectable, to testify what the 
woman said to him. This is only hearsay, and it is 
the declaration of the woman not under oath. Sup- 
pose you convict under such evidence, and it turn 
out to be an utter falsehood — what remedy is there 
against the witnesses ? John Gilder cannot be prose- 
cuted, for he told you only what Mary had said to 
him — you cannot punish Mary, for she has never 
sworn to any thing; it is only a bare naked lie on 
her part. 

Elizabeth Albertson is the next witness, she is the 
sister of Mary Albertson. 

[Mr. Wentz interrupted Mr. Bradford, by saying, 
she is only the half sister."] 

Well sister or half sister, her testimony is entitled 
to no weight, she speaks entirely of conversations 
with Mary Albertson — this is not evidence against 
Samuel Wentz, as he was not present to assent to 
their truth. There are in this, statements of persons, 
which if needed to be set forth, might be commented 
upon, but all that Mary Albertson said to these per- 
sons, is not evidence — Ex parte testimony, is never 
to be received — When both parties are present, and 
brought up to the ring-bolt, the truth may be dis- 
covered. In all cases of accusation, the times, 
places, and circumstances, should be ascertained, if 
possible, that the accused may have an opportunity 
to prove an alibi, or to excuse, or alleviate his crime. 
But if you have only ex parte testimony, you have 
only that, which no judicatory ought to listen to,, 



91 



and which no court, whether civil or criminal, would 
suffer to be received, except to contradict the party 
himself, who had adduced it. This witness tes- 
tified 

" That she went to see Mary Albertson at Mr. 
" Morris's, where she had gone to service from Mr. 
" Wentz's, suspecting that something was the mat- 
u ter and requested she would tell her, when she 
" did inform what she supposed was her situation. 
" That she did not tell her positively that Mr. Wentz 
" was the father, but said that she had told Mr. 
" Wentz to his face that he was the father of the 
" child of which she was pregnant, and nobody else. 
" She called several times to see her at Mr. Mor- 
" ris's, when Mary Albertson observed that she 
u should say nothing about it, both for her own and 
" her sisters sake, that Mr. Wentz would provide 
u for the child. 

m 

" Question by the session, Do you believe that 
" Mary Albertson was in earnest and sincere when 
" she said Mr. Wentz was the father? Ans. She did 
" believe so and still believes so. Qiies. Do you 
u believe or give credit to the oath of Mary Albert- 
M son, which clears Mr. Wentz? Ans. I do not be- 
" lieve it or give credit to it. Suites. What reasons 



u have you to doubt or discredit this? Ans. She was 
" satisfied in her own mind, from what she had heard 
" from her sister, that the oath cannot be true, and 
*' nothing would persuade her to believe it to be 
" true." 

This is the most extraordinary testimony that I 
ever heard in a court of justice; the witness first 
conjectures Mr. Wentz to be the father of her 
sister's child, though she was never told so by 
her sister, and when she is asked by the session 
whether she believed that Mary was sincere when 
she said Mr. Wentz was the father, answered that 
she did believe so and does still believe so; and 
she declares that she does not give credit to her sisv 




92 



ters oath, she is satisfied in her own mind that the 
oath cannot be true, and nothing would persuade her 
to believe it to be true. What! would truth itself not 
persuade her? 

But to return to the evidence. Elizabeth Albert- 
son goes on to say, 

u In a conversation after the birth of the child, 
u when Mary Albertson called on the witness, she 
u said she had cleared Mr. Wentz; when the witness 
w replied, you have cleared him with a lie. The an- 
fct swer was, that the communication made relative to 
Ci Mr. Wentz was to her as a friend, and further 
" stated that Mary Albertson did not deny that she 
u had taken a false oath, neither did she confess it; 
4i previous to this, anxious to see Mary Albertson, 
u she called on Mrs. Wentz to know where Mary 
14 Albertson was, when she refused to tell her, but 
" said that Mary Albertson was doing well. She 
ft then called where Mary Albertson lodged, and 
kt was refused admittance to her; twice these calls 
" were made, and she was refused. Mary Albert- 
" son then called upon the witness to whom it was 
" mentioned, that she, the witness, had called to see 
" c her and w r as refused admittance; the person seen, 
ct when she was refused, was a mulatto girl, who be- 
" haved very impertinently and threatened what she 
^ would do if she called again, and would not take 
£i her word for it." 

Here is the same irregularity of testimony as in that 
of Mr. Gilder, when he was relating what Mary 
Albertson told his wife, and what the servant said 
m denying him admittance; but what bearing has all 
this against Mr, Wentz. The witness to be sure, 
tells us that she called on Mrs. Wentz to know where 
Mary Albertson was, when she refused to tell her, 
but said she was doing well: but this is no proof that 
Mr. Wentz knew any thing about the place at which 
she was, or prevented her from visiting her sister. 
There is however some ingenuity in the arrangement 



93 



of this witness's testimony by coupling Mr. and 
Mrs. Wentz in the refusal to give information, and 
in the insinuation that they were the cause of her 
being refused admittance. This is not fair — what 
had either of them to do with the impertinence of 
the mulatto girl. Surely you will not call this evi- 
dence — it has no relation to any of the facts charged 
in this case. 

The witness goes on — 44 She is not certain whether 
she first heard where Mary Albertson was, from 
" Mr. Sloan or a young woman who lives next door: 
c ' The third time she called to see Mary Albertson 
u the refusal was made by an old gentleman. Mr. 
" Sloan who was with the witness at this time told 
" the old gentleman that the witness was the sister 
" of Mary Albertson; and that Grace Bowker was 
u there wanting to see Mary Albertson. The old 
" gentleman gave this information to a young woman 
a who went up stairs, and returned with an answer, 
" that it was not convenient to see Mary Albertson. 

£h(es. Did Mary Albertson ever say that she 
u would rather be burnt, than expose Mr. Wentz's 
" family? Ans, Mary Albertson told her the wit* 
u ness, that before she would expose Mr. Wentz's 
M family, she would rather be burnt, or throw her- 
44 self entirely away." 

In this part of her testimony you find Mr. Sloan 
with her, and Grace Bowker, but no Mr. Wentz — 
what can bring this conversation to bear upon Mr. 
Wentz, whilst trying upen the present charges? 

Questions bij the session, " Did you ever hear 
41 or suspect improper conduct in relation to Mr. 
41 Wentz and Mary Albertson, before she confessed 
tw to you? Ans, I did not know what was the mat- 
44 ter, but Mary Albertson did not wish to stay at 
4< Mr. Wentz's; she did not however enter into par- 
44 ticulars. 

If you destroy Mary's Albertson's declaration 



94 



upon oath, take care you do not get into a greater 
difficulty by the question thus asked* Mr. Wentz 
does not stand here to vindicate the chastity of Mary 
Albertson; but to vindicate himself from being proved 
the father of her child; and surely her not entering 
into particulars, as her sister says, cannot warrant 
the suspicions, conjectures, or belief of the witness. 
The question, did you ever hear or suspect, was 
highly improper; it should have been " do you know 
of any improper conduct in relation to Mr. Wentz 
and Mary Albertson," not " before she confessed to 
you,' 1 for it does not appear that she ever did confess 
to her, at any time before she was pregnant of the 
child of which she has been lately delivered.™ No 
man would be safe if suspicions are to be taken as 
proof. I suspect such a man, for example, to be 
the author of Junius, would this be evidence to con- 
vict that person on his trial for a libel? And you 
have nothing more in the testimony of this witness, 
as it relates to Samuel Wentz, than suspicion. 

The session then proceed to ask, " Do you know 
u the male company Mary Albertson kept? Ans. 
" Did not know; their residence was so far apart 
" from each other." 

Am I necessarily bound to know who keeps com- 
pany with my brother? He has his associates, and 
I have mine; there may be established a constant 
communication, and even a connexion between us; 
but this would not enable him to know all my asso- 
ciates. The reverend gentlemen of this presbytery 
associate together, when in this city, and are every 
day in full and free communion; but as their several 
residences are so apart, it is not possible they should 
be able to say of each other the company they kept 
respectively. So of Elizabeth Albertson, who lived 
in the country, and only visited her sister when she 
came to the city. 

" Questions by the session. Do you know the per- 
" son of Isaac Burdock? Ans. I do not know, nor 



95 



<c ever heard of such a person. S^iies. Do you sup* 
" pose that Mary Albertson might have had an ac- 
w quaintance with Isaac Burdock without your know- 
u ledge? Ans. From the confidence subsisting be- 
" tween us, I do not think it probable, though it may 
41 be possible, ^ues. Do you know, or have you 
" ever heard of any one that did know Isaac Bur- 
u dock. Ans. I never did. 

The same want of precision in the inquiry made 
by the session, runs through all these questions, ex- 
cept the first. 

" Do you suppose Mary Albertson might have 
" had an acquaintance with Isaac Burdock without 
" your knowledge?" 

Why could not Mary have had acquaintance 
with Isaac, without the sister's knowledge? Mary 
was a professor of religion in the Methodist church 
of this city. It is not likely that she would take 
her paramour to that sacred place, where curiosity at 
least would be excited; and it is accordant with human 
nature that she should be desirous of keeping secret 
her connexion with him: hence it may be true that 
Elizabeth Albertson neither knew herself, nor heard 
of any one else that knew Isaac Burdock. 

From what follows, it appears that the witness en- 
tertained some enmity against Mr. Wentz. 

" Question by Mr. Wentz. Who called upon you 
" the first time to go and see Mary Albertson? Ans. 
" There was a young woman of the name of Lucre- 
" tia M l Clasky, who told me that Mary was confined. 
" £K Was this before the conversation that took place 
" between you and Mr. Sloan in the alley? Ans. Yes; 
" Mr. Sloan did request me to go up and see Mrs. 
" Wentz, in order to obtain information where Mary 
" Albertson was. §>iies. Did you ever go to see Ma- 
" ry Albertson after hearing of her situation at Mr. 
" Morris's before her confinement? Ans. Yes; seve- 
" ral times. §>iies. Did Mary Albertson ever tell 



96 



i; you not to come and see her after she should 
ik leave Mr. Morris's? Arts. She did request me not 
" to call and see her. ^ues. What induced you to 
cl call out in the street, on the Sabbath, that your sis- 
" ter was confined in the third story of a house, and 
*' endeavour to raise a mob? Arts, I do not remem- 
" ber that I called out in the street with any view to 
u raise a mob: I might have mentioned to a boy that 
" was with me and a young woman standing at a door, 
" something relative to Mary Albertson, but do not 
" know what; it was, however, not much of any thing. 
w §>ues. Do you recollect saying that Mr. Wentz had 
" your sister confined in that house? Ans, I do not 
u recollect saying any such thing. 

44 The witness intimated before she retired, that 
" there was some more on her mind; and being urged 
" to declare the whole truth, she said Mary Albert- 
" son told her the night that the connexion took place 
" with Mr. Wentz, and that it was last New Year's 
" night. Being asked where it took place, she re- 
" plied, it was in the sitting room, or where the fami- 
" ly dine. She had been out at meeting, and Mr. 
" Wentz was waiting for her to come home; the fami- 
" ly having retired to bed." 

How does this comport with the testimony of other 
witnesses, even if true. By New Year's night, 
I presume we are to understand the night of the 
1st of January, 1819, or at farthest, the night pre- 
ceeding, say the 31st of December, 1818. Mary 
Albertson was delivered of her child on the 14th of 
September, 1819; this part of the story is somewhat 
contrary to the order of nature. It renders the 
whole narrative very suspicious. But what con- 
cludes the testimony, namely, " that Mary Albert- 
" son told her that Mr. Wentz, sometime after, was 
" sick in bed, in consequence of the connexion," I 
leave to the consideration of every man who hears 
me, 



97 



Elizabeth Hagner is the next -witness in behalf of 
the church; her testimony I shall examine minute ly v 
after having disposed of others. 

Eleanor Hagner is the next witness whose tes- 
timony I shall notice, It is somewhat curious, 
abounding with her opinions, her suppositions and 
thoughts. It consists of a conversation with Mrs. 
Westcott as to their opinions about Mary Albert- 
son and Mr. Wentz walking out together, and of a 
conjecture that Wentz was the father of the child 
with which Mary was pregnant. 

[Mr, Alexander Henry, one of the session, wished 
Mr, Bradford would 'proceed with his examination 
and remarks upon the testimony in some regular order, 
without turning or twisting from one side to the 
other, Mr, Bradford said he had a right to conduct 
his examination in such manner as he deemed best, and 
as the fair illucidation of the case required,^ 

I said that Eleanor Hagner's testimony was some- 
what curious — I will proceed to show that it is:— * 
She says, that 

" When we lived next door to Mr. Wentz's, Mrs. 
" Westcott had a room in the house with our fami- 
" ly, to whom I observed one day, that in my opinion 
" Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson went out too often 
u together, whose reply was, that she thought so her- 
w self, and added, that she had observed it also for 
" a long time, that she thought it her duty to speak 
*' to both of them concerning the subject." 

If the church could bring nothing but these specks 
of testimony, though they should bring forward an 
hundred witnesses, they cannot support the charge 
of Samuel Wentz's illicit commerce with Mary Al- 
bertson, or of his being the father of the child of which 
she has lately been delivered. The only fact that 
these witnesses prove is an innocent action; and that 
alone cannot demonstrate to a certainty a criminal of- 
fence. This witness goes on with her testimony, 
proving nothing that is charged. She says, 

i 



98 



M Mary Albertson shortly after came in and ex- 
44 pressed great concern about living at Mr. Wentz's. 
44 Mrs. Westcott then asked what were her reasons, 
" to which she made no reply. Mrs. Westcott asked 
u her if Mrs. Wentz was the cause that produced 
w a desire to go away; she said, no; Mrs. Wentz was 
44 very kind to her. After she was gone, Mrs. West- 
" cott observed that she thought sheicame to open her 
" mind to her, and she thought when she came again 
u she would tell her what was the cause that she de- 
44 sired to leave Mr. Wentz's. She observed that 
44 she thought Mr. Wentz was the cause why she 
44 wished to leave there; to which I answered, I 
44 thought so myself, and that I thought she ought 
44 to leave there. At another time Mrs. W estcott said 
44 to me, that she thought it would end in a child be- 
64 tween Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson, to which 
44 1 answered that I thought so myself, if they con- 
44 tinued to act as they did. About two months 
44 since, when Mrs. Westcott was at our house, she 
44 asked concerning Mr. Wentz and Mary Albert- 
44 son; L answered that according to report, it turned 
44 out as she had said last year. Mother being pre- 
44 sent, she said to Mrs. Westcott that she thought 
44 she was likely to be brought into trouble in conse- 
44 quence of something that Mary Albertson had told 
44 Mrs. Wentz, to which Mrs. Westcott replied, the 
44 good-for-nothing thing, after they have done as 
44 they have done, they now want to bring other folks 
44 into trouble by it." 

I would ask the venerable and reverend part of 
this presbytery, and the respectable and enlight- 
ened elders, whether this tedious narration of 
Eleanor Hagner and Mr. Westcott's conversation, 
of she said, and she thought, and I said, and I 
thought, is not altogether disgusting; it might per- 
haps suit the ears of gossipping and chattering 
women, sipping at their ease a dish of tea; but 
it never could be listened to by judges, who were 
trying a man for a heinous offence, in which his own 



99 

character and that of a numerous family of children 
are at stake. I will not dwell on this point, but pro- 
ceed with her testimony. 

44 Questions by the session. Who is Mrs. West- 
" cott? Ans, A woman who lived in our house; 
" but now lives in another place, and follows nursing; 
" she is in the communion of Mr. Patterson's church. 
u £htes. Were you intimate with Mary Albertson? 
" Ans, No otherwise than by seeing her daily. 
" ^ites. Were you acquainted with any of her male 
44 companions? Ans, Never have seen any male 
k4 companions, except Mr. Wentz, and never heard 
44 her speak of any one. ^ves. Do you know a per- 
1,4 son by the name of Isaac Burdock? Ans, I do not 
44 know the man, nor do I know any one that does 
" know him, have never heard of the name 'till lately. 
" £>ues. Why did you think that Mary Albertson 
** ought to leave Mr. Wentz's house? Ans, I 
u thought it would lead to worse, though I never 
u said any thing to her on the subject." 

This question and answer, are certainly irrelevant; 
what matters it what Eleanor Hagner thought; it was 
facts which the session ought to have sought — not 
thoughts or opinions — again, 

" Suites. Do you. know any reason why Mrs. West- 
" cott thought that Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson 
" were too familiar? Ans, I know of no reason 
" other than I had myself, that they went out too fre- 
44 quently together, both by day and by night." 

This question excites my astonishment. What? ask 
a witness do you know any reasons why another 
thought so and so; what answer could be expected? 
" I know of no reason other than I had myself, that 
they went out too frequently together," iiere again 
we have the burthen of the old song: — but now we 
get something more 41 both by day and by night;" and 
what follows? 

U £%ues. What evenings did Mr. Wentz and Mary 



100' 

" Albertson go out together? Ans. Generally those 
44 evenings that there was worship at the one or the 
44 other of their places of worship. 9 

Here I presume the fair inference is that they 
went to church tog-ether; and this is followed by a 
-question put by Mr. Wentz which admits their going 
out together; but I have already asked, where is the 
harm 4 n it, though it was proved by a hundred wit- 
nesses — but observe — - 

u ^ziestion bit Mr. Wentz — Did you ever see me- 
44 go out with Mary Albertson, but when my children 
44 were with me, excepting once. Ans. I saw that 
44 the children were sometimes along, but not al- 
44 ways." — Again — 44 Please to mention the night we 
44 went out together? Am. I cannot mention the 
41 clay of the month, nor the week." 

Please to remark that none of the witnesses can be 
got to particularise the time when; if that was done 
it would be somewhat satisfactory — But mark the 
next question and the answer, 

44 ^ues. Was Mrs. Wentz present at the time of 
44 my going out with Mary Albertson? Ans. She 
4 " 4 was." 

I presume that married men who have illicit com- 
merce with other women, do not walk out with them 
in the presence of their wives. 

44 Shies. Did you hear Mrs. Wentz or any other 
44 say where we went? A?is. Yes, I heard Mrs. 
44 Wentz say you went to meeting, but did not men- 
44 tion the place. Mary Albertson frequently told 
4< me that she wished to get Mr. Wentz to go to her 
44 meeting, but whether he ever did go I do not know. 
u £>jtes. Please to recollect at what time Mary Al- 
44 bertson went out with me, when my children were 
44 not along? Ans. I think, if I recollect, they went 
44 out one Monday" (this word stands in the written 
testimony, I presume it is a literal mistake; it 



iOi 



should be Sunday) " afternoon to Kensington; it was 
u to meeting. I cannot be positive whether the 
" children were with them or not. Series. Do you 
" not know when Mrs. Wentz was confined with a 
" child, if she was not in the practice of letting Mary 
" Albertson go out one part of every Sunday? Ans* 
" Yes, while she had a child. §>ues. Did you say 
" that we went one time to Schuylkill together? 
" Ans. I say yes, you did go together; this informa- 
a tion I got from Mary Albertson, and I know that 
u you did go, because I went into Mr. Wentz's 
u house and they were gone.' 7 

Here the witness asserts positively they did go 
together, because Mary Albertson told her so. It 
may be very true that Mary Albertson told her so, 
but that is no proof that the fact was so. And she 
swears that she knew that he did go, because she 
went into Mr. Wentz's house and they were gone. 
This witness draws a singular inference, and might 
as well swear that she called in at any one of our 
houses, and learning that we had gone out, and the 
servant woman not in the kitchen, that therefore we 
were strolling together on the banks of the Schuyl- 
kill. 

, By attending to her further answers, you will 
clearly discover that her testimony is vague and de- 
lusive. 

" §>Uea. Was this not the time that my cousin was 
" down from Lancaster, who accompanied Mary Al- 
4t bertson and myself? Ans, I do not know that she 
" went along; nor do I know that she was down at 
" that time. She, the cousin, was down at one time, 
" and went across the Delaware with Mr. Wentz, 
" Mary Albertson and the children; my sister was 
" also along. Mrs. Wentz was at that time confined 
" to her chamber." 

The witness further states " that a little less than 
u two months since, one evening at Mr. Wentz's 
u house, in the back parlour, Mrs, Wentz being 
i 2 



102 



present, Mr. Wentz asked me if I had ever saw 
41 any thing amiss between him and Mary Albertson? 
44 I told him I had seen things amiss. He told me 
44 at the same time that he had asked my brother 
44 whether he had seen any thing amiss between him 
tc and Mary Albertson. Mr. Wentz told me that 
" my brother said that he had not seen any thing 
" amiss between them; to which I answered, he had 
44 not so good an opportunity of knowing as I had; 
44 he asked me at the same time whether, if I was 
44 brought before any proper authority, I could take 
44 an oath to what I had said. I answered that I 
44 could, and would in case I was brought before 
44 proper authority, and was requested to do so, I 
44 could take an oath to it. Here I ought to mention 
44 what I told him what I thought was wrong; it was 
44 his going out so frequently with Mary Albertson. 
44 I asked him if he did not think it was wrong; he 
44 told me yes: at the same time, I told him that I 
44 thought no good would come of it. He also at 
44 this time had an affidavit which Mary Albertson 
44 had taken and wished me to read it; on my refu- 
44 sing to read it, he wished to read it to me himself. 
44 I told him I did not wish to read it or hear it 
« read." 

I need not make any further comment on this tes*- 
timony than this, that her testimony is somewhat 
curious in its opinions and suspicions; it consists of 
a conversation about Mr. Wentz and Mary's walk- 
ing out together, and of a conjecture that he was the 
father: it narrates a conversation with Mary, but it 
no where appears that Wentz was present at them, 
and she is contradicted by Mrs. Westcott in her tes- 
timony. 

The next witness for the church is Grace Bowker. 
This testimony need not occupy much of your time; 
she speaks entirely of conversations with Mary Al- 
bertson, but nothing passed between her and Mr. 
Wentz. These witnesses remind jiae of the story of 



103 

the' three black crows which a gentleman was re- 
ported to have vomited one morning. When he was 
told of the report, he went to the person who was 
given as the author and inquired how he could cir- 
culate such a falsehood. The man replied that he 
had not said three black crows, he had only men- 
tioned two black crows, and referred to the person 
who informed him of that circumstance. On seeing 
this second man he was assured that he had been 
mistaken, for it was only one black crow he had men- 
tioned, and he felt confident that it was the fact, as 
he had received the information from the physician 
^just as he returned from his visit. The physician 
being waited upon for explanation gave it by saying, 
Sir, I told that person not that you had vomited a 
black crow, but some matter as black as a crow, and 
that, sir, you know was the fact. And in the end of 
this inquiry, Moderator, I expect that the illicit com- 
merce charged against Mr. Wentz, will turn out to 
be no more than that he had accompanied her to 
meeting once, as once only has been fixed upon, and 
that was some Monday afternoon, but in what month 
or year nobody pretends to tell. 

The evidence I am about'to read is wholly illegal 
and improper. However for the sake of candour I 
shall offer a few comments, and they will be but a 
few. 

u That in the month of March last Mary Albert- 
44 son informed me of her situation. I then men- 
u tioned Mr. Wentz as being the man that / sus- 
44 pected, she did not deny it, but said, don't ask. The 
u reason why I mentioned Mr. Wentz, that she had 
" told a friend of hers, w)^> had told me (like the 
44 black crows) that Mr. Wentz had pursued her im- 
44 properly. I told her that I supposed I knew, and 
44 she replied, that she supposed I did. From that 
44 time as often as I saw her, she always spoke as if 
44 she had told me that he was the person. She also 
44 told me that she had acknowledged before^ Mrs. 

Wentz and Mrs* Hagner, that Mr. W entz was* 



104 



" the father of the child of which she was pregnant. 
" She told me that Mr. Wentz had said that he would 
" comply with any terms that Mrs. Wentz and Mrs* 
" Hagner would propose. At one time when I 
" called to see her, she said that they had provided 
" a place for her out towards Schuylkill, on Pine or 
a Spruce street, where she might board during her 
" confinement and three months previous. She was 
" not to go in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Wentz, as 
u if they were to provide for her, but, as the father 
u of the child had left the city and had left money in 
" her hands; she had calculated that all the expences 
st would be about 50 dollars." 

Now, what in the name of common sense can this 
story of Mary Albertson's prove against Mr. Wentz? 
But Mary on her oath has denied all this conversa- 
tion: Which is to be believed? I am not here to de- 
termine, but I resist the acceptance of such evidence. 

" When I saw her again, the people where she 
" was to have gone to, had refused to take her on the 
u terms that were first agreed upon. The next time I 
" saw her was at Mr. Wentz's own house; she said 
" that Mrs. Wentz was looking out for a place to put 
" her to board, but I do not know where. I called 
u once again, but did not see herself, but saw Mrs. 
" Wentz, who said she had a place provided for her. 
" Mrs. Wentz, I think, did not know that I was ac- 
" quainted with particulars, and expressed that she 
" was very sorry for Mary, as she had been brought 
*' up in her father's family, and would do what she 
" could for her that she should not suffer." 

Here the kindness expressed towards Mary is tor- 
tured into a meaning that Mrs. Wentz knew of her 
husband's criminal commerce, and was endeavouring 
to conceal it. 

" I called at the place where Mary was confined, 
" when the gentleman who kept the house denied 
c * her being there. A person who was with me, 



105 



*f said that it was the place, and he need net deny it, 
" The person then acknowledged that she was there, 
u but could not see any person. He then sent my 
4; name up to Mary to know -if it would be conve- 
u nient to see me, when she answered, no; it would 
44 not be convenient to see any person." 

What has this to do with Mr. Wentz, was he there 
to regulate Mary Albertson in relation to whom she 
would or would not suffer to visit? — no such thing, I 
presume, is pretended. 

" The next evening Mary Albertson called to see 
a me at my residence: she wished to know if I was 
" going to attend the meeting of the session; I told 
41 her it would be a very painful thing, but if I felt 
u it impressed on my mind as being a duty, I should 
** attend it; she said she felt herself guilty, and he 
44 was guilty also; understanding- .her to mean Mr. 
" Wentz: she said she felt as if she did not mind 
44 being exposed; w T e both deserve it; but for Mrs. 
" W entz's sake, and the childrens'. sake, she begged 
Ci that I would not appear. I said to Mary Albert- 
44 son that I understood she had cleared him; she re- 
a plied, yes, and I will, if I have to beg my bread 

from door to door. She said she had promised to 
44 keep it a secret, and she would. I then told her 
4 ' she had better come forward and declare the truth. 
4t She seemed incensed against those who had been 
44 her friends. I told her she esteemed him to be her 
^ friend who had been her greatest enemy. She said 
44 she supposed that none of us, who pretended to be 
44 her friends, would give her the smallest sum to 
44 support her, provided she declared the truth against 
44 him. Question by the session. How long have you 
44 been acquainted with Mary Albertson? Ans. I 
44 have known her for six or seven years, having be- 
44 longed tu the same class. Suites. Do you think her 
44 to be a person of a common understanding and not 
44 defective? Ans. Yes; 1 have always thought her 
44 so, and esteemed her upright and pious, £htes. 



106 



« Do you know Isaac Burdock? Ans» I do not, 
j^wea. Do you know her male acquaintances? -4/2.?. 
44 I do know those who were her acquaintances, as 
44 members of the class to which she belongs. i§*2#*- 
44 tion by Air, Wentz. You have been frequently 
44 in our house backward and forward? Ans. 1 have 
" been frequently at your house and feel it a painful 
44 duty to appear here against you." 

u Massey Evans, a witness in behalf of the church, 
44 was affirmed, and testified that Mary Albertson 
" came into our house and mentioned that she was 
14 going to watch night at the Academy, being the 
44 31st December last, and that Mr. Wentz was to 
44 come for her at 12 o'clock; next morning she came 
" in, and I asked if Mr. Wentz called for her? when 
44 she said no, some person came and detained him: 
44 He set up and waited for her till 12 o'clock. She 
44 asked me to go into the next house which Mr. 
a Wentz was building next door to us." 

This part of the testimony is defective, inasmuch 
as it does not set forth the time when Mary Albertson 
asked the witness to go into the new house, it may 
be supposed the 1st of January, but no certainty. 

44 Mr. Wentz met us at the door and appeared to 
44 be very fond of her, taking hold of her and "she of 
44 him. He took us up into the second story, put his 
41 hands upon her breast, and asked what she had 
44 there, and why she kept her bosom so loose. He 
44 then put his fingers into her bosom, and asked why 
44 she kept it so loose; she answered, that it was for 
44 the purpose of keeping her cotton and her thimble 
1,4 in; he told her she ought to put a drawing string 
44 in it and draw it up; he then took us up into the 
41 third story or garret, and told us to see how he had 
44 made them rooms; he had made them so that the 
* 4 boys and girls could get up in the night and go 
* 4 together, unknown to any body; that nobody would 
44 know it. She asked him what the girls wanted to 
* 4 do with the boys; she told him that the girls were 



lOt 



" not so fond cf the boys. He said, good God ! i 
" v/ould not trust them. She hit him a slap, and ask- 
44 ed him if he was not ashamed of himself." 

The circumstances here detailed appear to be over- 
strained. It is always an objection to a witness that 
his testimony is improbable. It is not likely that any 
man would act as this witness describes in the pre- 
sence of a stranger, much less if he was a man who 
made a profession of religion, and a married man 
with a numerous family of children, as is the case 
with Mr. Wentz. He must have been lost to all 
sense of decency, and totally unfit to present himself 
at the communion table. But suppose he had said 
all this, and put his fingers into Mary Albertson's 
bosom, does it prove that he was the father of her 
child? — Would it be considered such an offence as 
to justify the judgment and sentence of the session? 
— But the over-strained testimony of this witness is 
accounted for by the evidence given by William 
Hughes, who speaks of her behaviour and hatred to- 
wards Mr. Wentz. I will make an extract or two 
from his testimony. 

44 I asked Mrs. Evans (in the presence of two other 
44 persons, professors, one belonging to the Methodist 
a Society and one to the Presbyterian) if this report 
H concerning Samuel Wentz was true? She said it 
" was. I asked her what evidence she had to show that 
M it was true, I told her I wanted her to consider it 
" seriously, that it might go to considerable length. 
" After conversing with her, she told me she had no 
44 evidence of its being a fact, but merely what Mrs. 
44 Hagner told her. Then I asked her again — Mrs. 
44 Evans, you have no evidence of its being true, but 
44 merely what you have heard ,* then, said she, I 
44 will speak of it, because he has injured Peter. It 
44 is so, says she, for I saw him on my step, or my 
44 sister did, hugging an ordinary girl — and that Mr. 
44 Wentz had whipped Mrs. Hagner, over her son's 
44 head — and that Mr. Wentz had got Mrs. Hagner 



108 



^*mto difficulty. In order to know if what I heard 
" from Mrs. Evans was true, I conversed with Mr. 
a Hagner, and asked him candidly, is it a fact that 
tc Mr. Wentz has in any way injured you or your 
u mother in your dealings with him ? No, said he, 
<4 Mr. Wentz has been friendly to me ; in no in- 
44 stance did he take an advantage of me. I then 
44 went to Mrs. Evans, who repeated again the same 
a thing that she asserted'at first. But she went on 
" talking at such a rate, that I could not get her to 
44 listen to what I had told her of the falsity, that 
44 Mr. Wentz had taken the advantage of Mr. Hag- 
44 ner. I asked Mr. Hagner if it was true what Mrs. 
" Evans had said about Mr. Wentz's hugging an 
44 ordinary girl. Mr. Hagner told me it was false. 
44 In conversing with Mrs. Evans, I thought it my 
* 4 duty, as a member of the church, to admonish and 
44 advise her on the subject. I told her she would 
* 4 commit a great sin in letting- her tongue run on 
44 so unruly. She told me there was such a variance 
14 between her and Mr, Wentz that she could not help 
44 z£, and that through it^ she had neglected to go for- 
44 ward to the communion of the Lord^s supper. I en- 
44 deavoured to tell her the consequences of neglect- 
44 ingthe commands of God on that occasion ; in tell - 
14 ing her this, she laughed at it — I told her I could see 
44 that she was wrong. I am not, said she. When 
44 I directed her to the act of prayer, she turned it 
44 off zvith a kind of smile. I said many things to 
44 her, which she treated very indifferently. 

44 Question by Mr. Wentz. What do you think of 
44 the veracity of Mrs. Evans f Ans. I think she 
** speaks hastily, unadvisedly, and for which she 
4i sometimes may be sorry. Question by the session. 
44 Have you any reason to believe that Mrs. Evans, 
44 under the solemnity of an oath, would not speak 

the truth ? Ans. I refer to the testimony which I 
** have given as an answer to this. S^ues. Do you 
44 recollect the time when you first called on Mrs. 
* 4 Evans? Ans. I do not recollect precisely, but I 



109 



" think it was the month of September. Ques. Do 
" you know such a person as Isaac Burdock? Ans. 
« I do not. The time which I first heard of him or 
" about him I do not recollect." 

I will now return to the conclusion of Massey 
Evan's testimony. In answer to the questions of the 
session, she said she neither knew Isaac Burdock or 
any of Mary's male acquaintances. 

" §>ues. From all you have known relative to Mr. 
" Wentz and Mary Albertson, did you suppose there 
Cl had been or would be illicit commerce between 
" them? Ans. I did apprehend it, and frequently 
" mentioned to my husband my fears, who requested 
" me to say nothing about it. Mr. Wentz declined 
" putting any questions," 

And I think very properly. Her testimony was 
not impeached at the time it was given before the ses- 
sion, yet two days afterwards three witnesses were 
called in to support her character. First, Margaret 
Whiteman, who swears she knows her and has known 
her about six years, and believes her testimony may 
be relied upon, and on being asked, 

" §>ues. Is she a professor of religion? Answered, 
" she is a member of the Methodist church, worship- 
a ping at the Academy. §hies. What is your opinion 
" of her piety? Ans. I believe her to be a just and up- 
u right woman, but cannot say much as to her piety* 
" $$>ues. Has she been a talking woman? Ans. She 
" is a woman of poor education, and believe her to be 
" a good hearted person, who would not injure any 
" person. §>iiestion by Mr. Wentz. Do you not 
M know that she has been suspended from church 
" privileges in consequence of bad behaviour in the 
" neighbourhood? Ans. Not as 1 know of, or re- 
" member to have heard. §>iies. Do you know if 
" she is in the communion of the church now? Ans» 
" I am pretty certain that she is. 

Second, Jacob Walters, M had known Massey 

K 



110 



" Evans many years, both before marriage and since; 
" knew her as a member of the society. From all 
" he had known or heard of, her testimony may be 
u fully relied on; he would have full confidence in 
u her, having never seen any thing to induce him to 
" think otherwise. She is a member in communion 
*' of the church at this time, having never heard of 
" her being suspended from church privileges. Mr. 
" Wentz declined putting any questions." 

And the third witness to testify to Massey Evans' 
character was Margaret Artest^ who had known her 
better than five years, she belonged to the Academy 
with her, and the witness never knew her to be guilty 
of falsehood. A question by Mr. Wentz. " Do you 
know Mary Albertson? Answer, I know her by 
sight." 

I have nothing further to offer upon the credibility 
of this witness, but that the positive testimony of 
William Hughes, is full proof of her manifestation of 
hatred of Mr. Wentz; and neither of the three wit- 
nesses, who testify in favour of her character, touch 
at all upon that point. 

Sarah Gilder knows nothing of these transactions, 
but what Mary Albertson told her. Her testimony 
is a mere narrative of conversations. 

" Mary Albertson called in the month of April 
M last and requested that Mr. Gilder should take her 
" name off the class list; she called a second time, 
" and told me that she was in a family way, and said 
u if I would forgive her, she believed the Lord had 
" forgiven her. She appeared to be in a great deal 
*' of trouble, when I asked who the father of it was, 
i4 and if she could not get married to him? She said 
w it was a person in the house; but it was out of the 
« question to get married, that could not be — it was 
" impossible. I asked who would take care of her? 
" she replied, the father would provide for and take 
" care of her. In both conversations, she wept bit- 
? terly. %ues. Do you know Isaac Burdock? Ans, 



Ill 



44 I do not, I never heard of his name 'till lately. Mr. 
u Wentz declined putting any questions." 

Mary Snyder is next called upon to testify on be- 
half of the church. Her testimony consists alto- 
gether of conversations and suppositions, from which 
it would seem as if every means were to be adopted 
to procure a conviction. The witness says, 

44 That Mary Albertson told her, about two years 
" since, Mr. Wentz made very free with her, al- 
" iedging that he had a particular regard for her, 
44 when she told Mr. Wentz she would be under the 
44 obligation of leaving his house, when Mr. Wentz 
" said no, he would in future behave better to her." 

I should like to be informed why this circumstance 
was kept concealed — Was it a fear of making bad 
worse? 

" I called on Mary Albertson at Mr. Wentz 's, 
* and asked her how she could give up to him, 
" knowing that he had a family? She said she did 
44 not know how it was, but like Sampson, she was 
44 shorn of her strength. I then asked how Mrs. 
44 Wentz bore it? When she answered she bore it 
44 like a christian; had she not have been a. christian, 
44 she could not have been supported under it, I then 
44 told her I thought it would be better for her to go 
44 into the country; when she said no; if she went into 
44 the country, Mr. Wentz would do nothing for her, 
44 as it would be making it known amongst his peo- 
44 pie. I then spoke to her about a maintainance, and 
44 that it was necessary to swear the child; she said 
44 no, that she would rather suffer than do so, on ac- 
i4 count of his family; then she said that both Mr. 
44 and Mrs. Wentz told her that neither she or the 
44 child should ever sufFer, provided she would keep 
* 4 it a secret." 

This is an extraordinary mode of obtaining the 
performance of a promise, made on the condition of 



112 



secrecy — Mary Albertson, it would seem by this 
communication to her Ciass mate, relinquished her 
claim, if any she had, upon Mr. and Mrs. Wentz, 
and yet she lives as a domestic in the family at this 
very day. 

" Question by the session. Have you been to see 
" Mary? Ans. I have not; I called, but was not 
u p rmitted to see her. ®hies. How long have you 
" .vnown Mary? Ans. For eight years, having be- 
" longed to the same class; she has always supported 
" a good character till the present affair. §hies. 
"Do you know of Mary having any male acquaint- 
" ances? Ans. I do not. Shies. Do you know any 
" thing of Isaac Burdock? Ans. I do not; never 
" heard of his name till this time. ®>ues. Did Mary 
u admit to you that the child was Mr. Wentz's? 
" Ans. She did; and the impression on my mind, al- 
" ways was, that he was the father; she repeatedly 
" mentioned that she would rather suffer than expose 
" Mr. Wentz's family. Mr. Wentz declined put- 
tc ting any questions." 

This evidence consists of conversations with Mary 
Albertson and suspicions of the witness, and nothing 
more. 

Peter Evans is the next witness on the part of the 
church. He speaks of seeing Mr. Wentz last sum- 
mer, about twilight, passing through a ten feet alley, 
running from Eighth to Chester street, with Mary 
Albertson — this does not prove him to be the father 
of the child, for the child was born in the September 
following — I will, however, read to presbytery the 
whole of this account, that it may be seen that no 
false gloss is attempted. 

" Some time in last summer, about twilight, pas- 
14 sing through a ten feet alley running from Eighth 
" to Chester street, he saw Mr. Wentz and Mary Al- 
<c bertson in company together, which excited aston- 
" ishment, and induced me to look round to be satis- 



113 



" fied that it was them, particularly as he had heard 
" reports of their walking out together. Never 
u heard of the name of Isaac Burdock 'till he heard 
" of Mary Albertson's swearing* the child to him. 
" Question by Mr. Wentz. Have we been in the 
" habit of speaking to each other when we met? Ans. 
" One evening I recollect to have spoken to Mr. 
" Wentz, and probably at other times as to other 
44 neighbours, but the evening of meeting him in the 
" alley, I do not recollect to have spoken to him." 

The testimony on behalf of the church here closed. 
I will recapitulate all their names but one, and the 
brief amount of their testimony: — Now then, John 
Gilder, Eliza Albertson, Eleanor Hagner, Grace Bow- 
ker and Sarah Gilder know nothing of the fact, 
whether the appellant is the father of the child or not. 

Massey Evans speaks of behaviour, indeed, but 
when, is not stated — but it will not do by inference^ 
such as that now intended, to convict any one of the 
crimes of fornication, adultery or bastardy — would 
such evidence be received in a court of law? No. 
Is it not strange that it should be received by the ses- 
sion, consisting, as they did, of some of the most 
enlightened and respectable of the brethren of the 
Second Presbyterian church of the city of Philadel- 
phia. 

Eleanor Hagner is contradicted by Mrs. Westcott, 
Massey Evans's character is impeached by Mr. 
Hughes. 

He speaks of her language and conduct in such a 
manner as to shake her credit; he states that he con- 
versed with Mrs. Evans, if the report concerning 
Mr. Wentz was true; she said it was. On his ask- 
ing what evidence she had of the fact, she said she 
had no evidence but merely what Mrs. Hagner told 
her — then remarked, you have no evidence but 
merely what you have heard — Then says she, I will 
speak of it, because he has injured Peter; it is so, 
says she, for I saw him on my steps hugging an or- 
X 2 



114 



dinary girl, and that Mr. Wentz had whipped Mrs. 
Hagner over her son's head. Again, she said there 
was such a variance between her and Mr. Wentz, that 
she could not help it — This witness has manifested 
an ignorance and a spirit of abuse that sets her testi- 
mony altogether aside. Margaret Whiteman testi- 
fies in answer to the question by the session, has she 
been a talking woman? She is a woman of poor 
education. Jacob Walters had no doubt but her tes- 
timony might be relied upon; but general good cha- 
racter cannot invalidate positive testimony of angry 
malice. 

The witnesses who appear to testify to Eleanor 
Hagner's general character are to the same purpose, 
and may be answered in the same words, they cannot 
invalidate positive testimony. 

The only and principal witness on the part of the 
church whose testimony remains to be examined is 
Elizabeth Hagner, and, as it is near the hour of ad- 
journment, I will pause to inquire whether the Pres^ 
bytery will now decide to adjourn. 

[Dr. Janeway supposed from this observation of 
Mr. Bradford that he was inclined to furnish them 
with a long speech, proportioned to the amount of his 
pay.] 

Mr. Bradford replied, that truth was never injured 
by a full examination, and he would say no more than 
was absolutely necessary to do justice to the cause he 
advocated, without regard to pay or compensation. 

[Presbytery then had a recess until 3 P. M.] 

Mr. Bradford in continuation, 
Mr. Moderator, 

During the recess, I have revised the testimony, 
I have gone through; and the more I consider it the 
more I am convinced that it is illegal and irrelevant. 
It is not sufficient that you produce credible witness- 
es, but they must testify that which is legal and com- 



115 



petent to convict. There must be more than one 

witness to establish a crime by our form of process, 
There is among those whose testimony we have ex- 
amined not one who supports the charge. 

Elizabeth Hagner is the only witness whose testi- 
mony looks like proof of guilt. I will now proceed 
to examine it in detail, make. particular observations 
on the different parts of it, and deduce some general 
inferences from a comparison of this evidence widi 
other evidence in the case. — She testifies that 

" Some time in January last, Mrs. Wentz came 
a to her house and stated the uneasiness she had on 
" her mind relative to Mary Albertson; she did not 
" speak very plain, I waved the subject, she then 
" dropt it herself. Next morning, Mrs. Wentz 
" came in and told me more plainly her uneasiness. 
u She told me that things had not been right in her 
" house for some time; and told me that Mr. Wentz 
" and Mary Albertson had been rather too intimate^ 
" and wondered how she could be blind to it so long; 
*' I told her then I had felt uneasy myself at seeing 
" them going out together; she asked me if I would 
u speak to Mr. Wentz about it — I told her if she 
" thought it would be of any service, I would." 

And Mrs. Westcott states that she lodged at Mrs. 
Hagner's at the time alluded to, that she was inti- 
mate with Mary Albertson, and 

" That she would not have been more diffident 
** to have told me than Mrs. Hagner, as we were in 
" the habit of going to church together, both to Dr. 
** Jane way's and to Mr. Patterson's." 

What Mrs. Hagner says respecting the going out to- 
gether of Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson, which is 
the ground on which her suspicions are founded, is a 
circumstance altogether unsupported by any other wit- 
ness. Mrs. Westcott answered a question put by 
the session on this point; whether you ever made any 
remarks relative to Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson 



116 



walking together? Ans. I never saw them together but 
once in going to church, and then I went with them 
myself. On this head, Mrs. Elizabeth Hagner pro- 
ceeds — 

u I do not recollect if it was that same morning, or 
" the next; it was one of the two; he (Mr. Wentz) 
" came to the door, where I met him; I asked him 
" to walk in, he said yes, and observed he knew what 
" I wanted. I had some conversation with him on 
" the subject; I asked him if he did not think it was 
" imprudent to go out with Mary Albertson so much 
" alone. I asked him if they were not putting them- 
w selves in the way of temptation. I stated to him 
14 that it was not a proper thing for him to stay up at 
" night and wait for her. The conversation with 
M Mr. Wentz continued about an hour, during which 
" time I did not accuse Mr. Wentz of any thing 
" criminal, but treated with him on the score ©f im- 
" prudence." 

This I say is the gist of the question — and let me 
ask of this presbytery, whether it contains a single 
expression which can criminate Mr. Wentz? The 
only words uttered by him when he came to the 
door, and was asked to walk in, are, " yes; and ob- 
served that he knew what I wanted." The rest of 
the conversation, if conversation it is to be called, 
when a talking woman asks questions respecting the 
frequent walks of Mr. Wentz with Mary, and yet 
submits no reply, then remarks on his going so much 
with her alone, is an insinuation that they went out 
frequently both by day and by night, and nothing is 
given in evidence which corroborates or justifies this 
insinuation. The only time they were seen walking 
together was on a Sunday going to church, and were 
accompanied by Mrs. Westcott. 

She then proceeds to testify that u Mary Albertson 
" called on the evening of the same day, she appear- 
w ed to be in great distress when she came in — told 



117 



44 me she had something to communicate; I asked if 
" she had well considered the matter before she 
" came, she said she had, and had been tempted very 
u often before to tell me the circumstances; she in- 
" sisted upon telling me; she then proceeded on to say 
44 that Mr. Wentz had professed an attachment to 
44 her; I asked her how she could bear to stay in the 
44 house? she said she hardly knew how to account 
44 for that: she then went on to state how Mrs. 
44 Wentz came to discover any imprudent intimacy; 
44 she said it was on the Monday coming previous to 
44 the evening she conversed with me." 

This by no means fixes the evening with precision, 
so that an inquiry might be made of another person 
as to the truth of the occurrence referred to. 

44 That Mr. Wentz and his brother were out. 
44 They came home. Mr. Wentz was much displeas- 
44 ed that Mrs. Wentz and Mary were up so late, 
44 and said some words that gave Mary pain, she 
44 retired into the back kitchen and wept. Mrs. 
44 Wentz retired to bed. Mr.. Wentz and his bro- 
44 ther went next door; she Mary Albertson staid up 
44 till they both returned. Mr. W r entz came to the 
44 kitchen to her and conversed with her; he pursued 
44 the customary plan of professing his attachment to 
44 her; she said that he kissed her upon her neck and 
44 left a blue mark. The next morning Mrs. Wentz 
44 discovered the blue mark, and asked what was that 
44 on her neck? her conscience condemned her, and 
44 she confessed to Mrs. Wentz how it came there, 
44 Mrs. Wentz and her spent a very unhappy day in 
44 consequence of it. Mrs. Wentz called upon me 
44 more or less every day, as a person in great dis- 
44 tress. Mary complained some time after, perhaps 
44 a week, that she was not well, and wished a physi- 
44 cian; Doctor Perkins was sent for, the Doctor in- 
44 quired of Mrs. Wentz if she thought that the girl 
44 was clear of being in a family way. Mrs. Wentz 
44 told him she thought she was— accordingly he pre- 



118 



44 scribed for her; she continued taking medicine for 
44 about a week; Mrs. Wentz came in every day, 
<4 expressing her uneasiness about Mary's situation. 
" I felt uneasy in my own mind, believing her to be 
§i in a family way. I told Mrs. Wentz that I thought 
a she ought not to take medicine. I was fearful 
from the way it operated on her, that it would de- 
ct stroy her own existence. On telling Mrs. Wentz 
" my opinion, she burst into tears and said she knew 
" where that would go. Some further conversation 
" took place on the subject. On going home she 
" accused Mary of that being her situation. Mary 
" did not deny it, only said that she did not know 
" whether it was so or not; but did not say it was 
44 not. As nearly as I can recollect, Mrs. Wentz 
" mentioned to Mr. Wentz her suspicions of Mary. 
u A few days after, Mrs. Wentz called again and 
" told me that Mr. Wentz thought it was likely to 
** be the case. Mr. Wentz then desired Mrs. Wentz 
44 to consult with me how it should be kept secret, 
44 I told her that I was fearful it could not be done; 
44 she said it was very desirable on account of herself 
44 and her children. I told her that I thought it was 
44 necessary for the girl to be removed out of the 
44 u ouse- — she ^id she would have that done as soon 
44 as possible. (Here it was stated by the witness that 
44 much more took place with Mrs. W entz which she 
44 considered not necessary to relate.) 1 ' 

It is another curious circumstance, that this wit- 
ness relates just so much and no more than what 
answers her own purpose in making up her story. 
In a court of justice a cross examination would have 
sifted such testimony and brought into view all the 
facts, so as to obtain a clue whereby it might be test- 
ed by conflicting witnesses. — There appears to have 
been good reason that such a course of examination 
should have been pursued, from the extraordinary 
and unnatural texture of her facts, or rather fictions. 
Sometimes very minute in relations of their conver- 



119 



sations, but leaving the times of their taking place to 
be guessed at. The conduct she ascribes to Mrs. 
Wentz is not in human nature. Instead of protecting 
and providing for the person who had had illicit in- 
tercourse with her husband a contrary conduct on her 
part might have been expected: a wife cannot endure 
the society or even presence of her who has been cri- 
minal with her husband, however she may be dispo- 
sed to forgive him for her own and her childrens' 
sake. She will feel as Sarah did of old, that she was 
despised in her eyes, and by dealing hard with the 
hated object, would compel her to flee from her face. 
She would never connive at their frequent walking 
out together, as testified by Elizabeth Hagner to have 
been the case with Mr. Wentz and his servant, who 
had then lived in the family eight or nine years — 
and here let me remark, the witness no where de- 
clares whether these frequent walks were before or 
after her pregnancy. 

I will proceed to the remainder of her testimony, 
though, as the advocate of the appellant, I must in- 
sist upon its rejection as every way incompetent and 
illegal. If such testimony is received and establish- 
ed as a precedent in your ecclesiastical judicatory, 
no man however innnocent, however honourable 
and just, can be safe in his person, his character 
or his property, from such malignant calumny. 
She goes on: 

" I proposed her Mary's going to the country, 
4t considering it the best way of concealing it. Mrs. 
« Wentz said she did not know what part of the 
" country to send her to: she said it would not do 
" to send her to her native place, on account of Mrs. 
u Wentz's people living there; she wished very 
" much to conceal it from them: it was at length 
" agreed that she should remain in the city; I was 
" to look out for a private place for her to go to. 
u Mary persisted in her determination to go and 
4t confess it to her meeting; I strove hard against 



120 



** that; Mary told me that she did confess it to her 
" meeting; I toid her then it would be a matter im- 
** possible to keep it concealed. At this time she 
a lived at Mr. Morris's in Eighth-street. She was to 
" live there till the first of August or September, 
M and then there was a place provided for her to go to. 
M During this time of being at Mr. Morris's, she 
" was not to go to Mr. Wentz's house. At Mr. 
" and Mrs. Wentz's request, I went backward and 
" forward, from time to time, making known the 
" terms on which she might be boarded. She, 
" Mary, demanded two months boarding previous 
" to her confinement; I told Mr. and Mrs. Wentz; 
44 Mrs. Wentz was not willing to pay for board more 
" than one month. I told Mary I thought this was 
44 sufficient. She persisted in demanding the two 
« months; I told her it would not be granted; she said 
44 if Mr. and Mrs. Wentz did not do as she wanted 
" that she would go to the Bettering house and give 
44 herself up to the overseers of the poor. 

" Here a part of the testimony was not thought 
" necessary to relate, it going to show the high terms 
44 that Mary was disposed to exact beyond what the 
44 witness considered was right. 

" I went down to Mr. and Mrs. Wentz and told 
44 them what Mary said she would do. Mr. and 
" Mrs. Wentz and myself went up into the garret 
" and conversed freely about the terms that he was 
44 willing to give. Mr. Wentz said that whatever 
" Mrs. Wentz and I thought was right, he was wil- 
" ling to do. I thought one month's board, previous 
44 to her confinement, was sufficient. It was then 
*' agreed I should go out towards Schuylkill, where 
44 Mr. Wentz has a house, in order to get her accom- 
44 modated with boarding during her confinement. 
41 (Much conversation now took place not necessary 
" to state.) — Previous to my going to Mary Albert- 
44 son, Mr. Wentz requested me to state, that if she 
44 persisted in making demands that was thought un- 



121 



u reasonable that she might go to the Bettering house, 
u and that he would pay his fine which was three 
u hundred dollars, and then he would be done with 
" her. I told Mary this. (Here again much conver- 
" sation which need not be mentioned.) 

u Mary Albertson then agreed that she would 
" save her wages and pay for one month herself, and 
" then agreed to the terms that Mr. and Mrs. Wentz 
" and myself had concluded to do for her. I then 
" returned home, and thought that the whole plan 
" was settled. I did not go to Mr. Morris's for 
u three weeks; in the mean time I was expecting Mr, 
* Wentz to call upon me, to show me the way to the 
u place where Mary was to be boarded. He did not 
u call. Mary, in the mean time became impatient, 
" went to Mrs. Wentz herself, told Mrs. Wentz that 
" I had said I was tired of the business, and also 
" told her that I said that Mrs. Wentz had said that 
M she was not willing that any thing should be done 
u for her, which I declare was not the truth. Mrs. 
Ct Wentz took very great offence at me, and of course 
u I had nothing more to do in the business. There 
" was a circumstance took *place previous to this, 
" which I will now mention: Mrs. Wentz called on 
w me and said that she had hardly thought that the 
" child was Mr. Wentz's, as Mr. Wentz had told 
u her he never had any connexion with Mary Albert- 
" son but once. I do not recollect my answer to 
" this, but intimated to her, that I did not think that 
u that would excuse him." 

The witness further states, that " Mary Albertson 
" repeatedly told her that the child was Mr. Wentz's 
" and no other man's, ^lestion by the session. Did 
u Mr. Wentz ever acknowledge to you that he was 
a criminal with Miry Albertson? Ans. No other- 
w wise than what is stated; the thing appearing to be 
" admitted by his readiness to do every thing that 
<c was necessary for her — and I never asked him the 
" question. Q^ies, How long have you been ac- 
" quainted with Mary Albertson? Ans. About two 

L 



122 



" years. §>ues. In conversation with Mary Albert- 
w son did you consider her to have common intellect? 
44 Ans. I do consider her to possess common under- 
" standkig and not deficient. Suites. Did you know 
44 her male associates? Ans. I know of none, and 
44 never heard her speak of any. Shies. What did 
44 you think of her piety? Ans. She appeared pious, 
44 but no way bright. Qties. Do you know Isaac 
" Burdock, or any one that does know him? Ans. 
u No. Mr. Wentz declined putting any questions." 

I have now read the whole of Mrs. Hagner's tes- 
timony, and I beg leave to remark, that if you sepa- 
rate all that part of her testimony which narrates 
what Mrs. Wentz and Mary Albertson said to her 
and she said to them, from what Wentz said to her, 
and her replies to him; and it will appear obvious to 
all that the examination could not have occupied one 
hour. 

This witness is contradicted by Mrs. Westcott in 
some particulars, and such a character given of her 
by Mrs. Westcott as must very much weaken, if not 
totally destroy her credibility. — She says, 

" I have been intimate with Mrs. Hagner about 
44 six years, of which time we lived together about 
44 three years; her character is that of a talking 
44 woman, but do not know that she is to be accused 
44 of falsehood." 

The character here given of an old lady has long 
been proverbial; — nor are all young ladies or those of 
a middle age, altogether free from this defect; but 
that such women's tattle should be brought as evi- 
dence, is to me a matter of surprise; it would be 
laughed out of a court of justice, and I cannot but 
wonder that it has been taken down before the ses- 
sion and brought up here on the appeal. Nothing 
can be more vexatious than to be drawn into an ex- 
amination of matters which cannot be admitted to 
bear on the case under consideration. 



123 



This witness, I have stated, is contradicted by 
Mrs. Westcott, and I now add by Mary Albertson, 
in the conversations said to have passed between 
them, and also by Mrs. Wentz, as to what is alledged 
to have been said or done by her. All the conver- 
sations she had with Mr. Wentz are to be found in 
only a few places in her deposition; but note here that 
the whole of the testimony is not mentioned. And 
now I am on the subject of conversations, I would 
just remark, that there is great difficulty in repeating 
conversations correctly, unless they are written down 
at the time or immediately afterwards. Mrs. Hag- 
ner relates things as having passed in her hearing, 
which evidently did not. — People who talk a great 
deal, particularly talking women, are bad retailers of 
conversations; what they have heard others say, and 
what they said frequently to other persons, become 
so worked up in the memory that it is often related 
as if they knew the facts of their own knowledge, or 
had heard the conversations truly as they relate 
them; whilst a misapprehension or an omission of a 
single sentence or of an important word will render 
the whole incorrect and contradictory. There may 
be many qualifications of general terms which change 
the sense if they be omitted. It is not likely that 
any man who had been guilty of a breach of a mar- 
riage vow would consult with his wife as to the best 
mode of concealing it from the public; and it is con- 
trary to probability that he would go with his wife to 
consult a neighbouring woman. Mrs. Hagner fur- 
ther says — and this is the only important point in the 
whole case, 

u That previous to my going to Mary Albertson, 
44 Mr. Wentz requested me to state that if she per- 
44 sisted in making demands that was thought un- 
44 reasonable, that she might go to the Bettering 
44 house and that he would pay his fine, which was 
44 three hundred dollars, and then he would be done 
44 with her. I told Mary this. (Here again much 
44 conversation which need not be mentioned.)" 



124 



This single insulated sentence, without specifying 
either time or place, and who was present, is so incon- 
sistent with common prudence or ingenuity, that it 
is unworthy of credit; — for if this man is guilty, we 
should not expect him confessing what was his high- 
est interest to conceal from the world, from his wife, 
and more particularly from a talking woman. Had the 
rest of the conversation been set down, it might have 
enabled us to fix the time, place and circumstances 
attending the confession, which would have been all 
important. An alibi might have been shown. 

If Mr. Wentz had been guilty of this act, it is most 
probable that he would have taken care to have had 
the girl removed from his house to some place where 
his wife would be ignorant of her situation, and his 
vicious intercourse remain concealed. When the 
boundary of chastity is once broken down, it is gene- 
rally believed from the observation and experience 
of those conversant with the vices of human nature, 
that progress in criminal pursuits is always with an 
increased velocity. 

The story about the blue mark on the neck is in- 
credible. Do you suppose any man's wife would 
suffer a strumpet of this kind to remain in her house? 
I do not care who the person is who tells such an im- 
probable story; I cannot believe it, unless it is proved 
that the wife is as bad as the woman, and no such an 
idea was entertained by the session; for Mrs. Wentz 
is in full communion with the Second Presbyterian 
Church to the present day, and always has been, 
since she first joined that society. We have two 
oaths against this one, Mary Albertson and Mrs. 
Wentz — Mary Albertson swears that Isaac Burdock 
is the father of the child. Mrs. Wentz, though she 
cannot be considered as a legal witness on the part of 
her husband, yet as she was received as such by the 
session, some weight no doubt was given to her de- 
claration, and it denies almost every thing alledged 
by Mrs. Hagner to have passed between them, 
Mrs. Hagner asserts that Mrs. Wentz called qpoa 



125 



her, in relation to some difficulty with the family. 
Mrs. Wentz flatly denies it, and says, 

M That Mrs. Hagner came to her and asked 
" what ails Polly? " the answer was this — " It is 
M unknown to me; Polly hzs been complaining for a 
" year or eighteen months." Mrs. Hagner said that 
" Polly told her she must send for the doctor at 
" Polly's request — the doctor came — she was in the 
" parlour scrubbing; what passed between her and 
" the doctor, I did not hear and do not know; but at 
tC this time I was perfectly innocent of knowing what 
" was the matter." 

The story of the blue mark on Polly's neck is 
shown by Mrs. Wentz to be an entire fabrication, 
either by Mrs. Hagner or by Mary Albertson. Mrs. 
Wentz relates the transaction of the evening alluded 
to in this way: 

" The evening that Mr. Wentz brought home his 
" brother, I was not at home. I was at Mr. Wales, 
" and they came home at seven o'clock. Mr. Jona- 
" than Wentz had business at Mr. Benders, who 
w asked his brother to accompany him there, they 
" both returned between nine and ten o'clock. I was 
" in then at Mr. Wales; Mr. Wales went in and 
" brought Mr. Wentz and his brother in to take a 
*' drink with him. After being there a short time, 
" about half an hour, I returned home with my child, 
" it being fretful. After my getting home, Polly 
" lighted a candle and retired to bed, leaving a door 
'* in the alley open for Mr. Wentz. Between ten 
41 and eleven o'clock, or near eleven, Mr. Wentz and 
" his brother returned from Mr. Wales; after this a 
¥ candle was lighted for Mr. Wentz to show his 
u brother to bed; immediately after this I took the 
" child out of the cradle and followed them up stairs; 
u Mr. Wentz came out of his brother's room and we 
** both went to bed together." 

Mrs, Wentz then proceeds to give an account of 

l> 2 



126 



the garret scene and conversation, in which Mr. 
Wentz is represented by her as joining in the con- 
versation. 

" I understand that Mrs. Hagner has stated before 
" the session that a consultation was held in the gar- 
M ret between her, Mr. Wentz and myself; we never 
" had such conference together as regards Mr. 
" Wentz. When she came up to the garret, I was 
" folding my clothes; she sat down on the bed side; 
" I finished folding my clothes; we conversed on dif- 
" ferent subjects, principally relating to different 
u churches; after finishing my work, I sat down along 
u side of her; the subject then turned upon Polly. 
" Mrs. Hagner observed that she had been to see 
" her that morning. I asked her how Polly was; 
u she said that she appeared very low spirited. I 
" asked from what cause, had any thing new taken 
" place? She said that Polly told her that the man 
u had gone off. Said I, has she got nothing from him? 
u Mrs. Hagner then replied that she said she had 
" not got a cent; Polly says that she is doubtful if 
u she has got enough to support herself through her 
" confinement; she was apprehensive she should 
" have to go to the Bettering house. The answer I 
" then made was; if she has been such a fool to let 
a him go off, without getting any thing from him, 
" she must abide the consequence. Likewise I said, 
et that she had better to do that than to suffer. All 
" this time Mr. Wentz was at the head of the second 
44 stairs. Mrs. Hagner said to me, you are called. 
a I then got up and went down, when Mr. Wentz 
" said, Mr. Kempton's house-keeper wants to see 
" you. Mrs. Hagner then followed me down; Mr. 
u Wentz having come no farther up the stairs; and 
4t this is the last conversation which ever passed be- 
u tween Mrs. Hagner and I, respecting Mary's situa- 
" tion Question by Mr. Wentz. Did you ever tell 
M Mrs. Hagner that you believed the child to be 
u mine. Ans. I never told Mrs. Hagner S9 5 neither 



127 



44 directly or indirectly. Suites. Did you ever say, in 
44 a flood af tears, that you knew where this would 
14 end? Ans. Never, I never thought it belonged to 
a you. ^ttes. Did I ever mention to you that I had 
" a connexion with Mary once? Ans, Never; I no 
44 more thought so than an infant of a week old; if I 
" had ever thought that Mr. Wentz had had a con- 
44 nexion with her, she never should have been con- 
;i tinued about my house. £>iies. Did you ever hear 
u me say that if Mary would not comply with your 
44 and Mrs. Hagners request, I would pay my three 
44 hundred dollars? Ans. Never." 

• The following testimony, which is clear, plain and 
conclusive, contradicts Mrs. Hagner in a variety of 
places. This story is natural, the other absurd and 
contradictory. 

" £>iies. What conversation took place between 
" you and Mrs. Hagner relative to providing a place 
" for Mary. Ans. Mrs. Hagner spoke to me on this 
44 subject, offering her services at the request of 
44 Mary, to provide a place for Mary, but I never 
" applied to her. About one month before Mary's 
44 confinement, she, Mary, came and said that she 
" did not know what to do for a place, and said, 
u Madam, will you hunt me a place, saying I have 
44 not the heart to look out for myself — Then I repli- 
44 ed I don't know that I shall; the reason is this — 
44 you have acted in so base and so gross a manner 
44 towards your Maker, in making a profession of re- 
44 ligion and acting the part of a hypocrite, that I do 
44 not know that I can do any thing for yon. Then 
44 she replied, you are the only friend in this place 
44 that I can call upon, and observed, if you won't I 
44 am tempted many times to make way with myself. 
44 Then I began to reflect upon what I said to her, 
44 and told her (apprehending she might make way 
44 with herself) that I would do what I could in get- 
44 ting her a place. I then asked how she was pro- 
44 vided for? her reply was, I have provided for 



128 



4 * myself; says I, how or in what way? Mary replied, 
44 out of my own earnings; — she added, I had some 
*< money when I left your house (and which I knew 
" to be the case) and with what I have been able to 
" save up since, she said she thought she would be 
" able to bear her expenses; she then asked to be 
44 permitted to stay until I could get her a place; to 
41 this I consented, and the Tuesday following I went 
" in search of a place for her, and procured one at 
" Mrs. Kochler's. On the next Sabbath day evening, 
" she went to this place, and there she staid during 
44 her confinement. There never was any conversa- 
u tion between Mrs. Kochler and me respecting 
4c what was to be paid per week, not till some time 
44 after she was confined. One day when I was at 
" Mrs Kochler's, she said I hardly got paid for my 
44 trouble. I then asked her what does Polly pay you; 
41 she said four dollars per week for three weeks, or 
** four and a half, and I cannot positively say which 
44 it was, and one and a half before and after." 

I suspect, Moderator, that it is not usual for wives 
to make bargains for the support of their husbands' 
illegitimate children. It is not probable that Mr. 
Wentz would have communicated to Mrs. Wentz 
that he was the father of the child, or that he had 
illicit intercourse with Mary Albertson, as Mrs. 
Hagner states. Such information to any other man's 
wife might have produced a curtain lecture, which 
is generally understood to be no very pleasant or 
agreeable circumstance to an offending husband. 
But view this subject in the point of view taken of it 
by Mrs. Wentz, and the course she pursued was be- 
nevolent and natural. She had long known Mary 
before she came to Philadelphia to live in her family 
where she had then been for eight years — after 
checking her for her hypocrisy in pretending to be a 
professing christian, she became alarmed at the idea 
of Mary's making away with herself and consents to 
get her a place where she might remain quiet; con- 



129 



ceiving that the poor girl was so ill treated by the 
man who had had intercourse with her, she felt com- 
passion. If she knew that Mr. Wentz had had, even 
once, illicit commerce with the girl, such conduct 
would be manifestly out of the natural course of her 
duty: but if another person was the father of the 
child her conduct was meritorious. 

Mrs. Hagner has several times stopt short in de- 
livering her testimony, when every word and cir- 
cumstance would have been worth their weight in 
gold. On this point I think the session showed great 
remissness; they should have compelled the witness 
to narrate all the circumstances and not have allowed 
her to exercise a discretionary judgment, as to what 
she thought proper to state and to conceal. The con- 
versation asserted to have taken place between 
Mrs. and Mr. Wentz and Mrs. Hagner, is of that 
description: She said, 

" Mr. and Mrs. Wentz and myself went up into 
c< the garret and conversed freely about the terms 
** that he was willing to give. Mr. Wentz said what- 
" ever Mrs. Wentz and 1 thought was right he was 
" willing to do: I thought one month's board previ- 
" ous to her confinement was sufficient: it was then 
" agreed that I should go out toward Schuylkill, 
u where Mr. Wentz has a house, in order to get ac- 
" commodated during her confinement. Muchconver- 
" sation now took place not necessary to state" 

It is matter of astonishment to me that the ses- 
sion did not force out a disclosure of the whole— 
here, where the defendant is brought forward as ac- 
knowledging something like guilt, and in a part of the 
testimony which seems to touch him, the matter is 
passed with saying " much conversation took place 
not necessary to state." Who was to judge of this 
necessity? not I presume the witness on the part of 
the church, but the session of the church, who anxi- 
ously expressed a wish that the defendant might be 



1SQ 



able to clear himself from the charge of illicit com- 
merce and bastardy. 

Are not the reverend ministers and elders of 
this presbytery astonished that the session should 
proceed to condemn the appellant on such testimony, 
if for no other reason than this loose manner of ex- 
amining this witness, and she is the only one who 
relates any thing that looks like guilt. This body I 
am convinced will sustain the appeal. What only 
two persons in the room beside herself, and she is not 
called upon to repeat every word that took place. 
Who has a right to determine that the much conver- 
sation need not be mentioned? If the session did not 
find out the truth from this witness it was their own 
fault, and that is what now remains to be corrected. 

Mrs. W entz's testimony contradicts the whole on 
this head of the testimony — and it appears that Mr. 
Wentz was not in the garret at all. It is not likely 
that he would take a stranger with his wife into the 
garret to converse on any such subject. It is a story so 
highly improbable in the way that Mrs. Hagner re- 
lates it, and so likely in the manner that Mrs. Wentz 
states it, that I have no hesitation in giving the one 
my confidence and the other my utter disbelief. 

Mary Albertson testified on oath numerous decla- 
ration, of Mrs. Hagner to have been false, and Mrs. 
Wescott weakens her credit. Here are three 
witnesses opposed to a single witness, and by the 7th 
section of the forms of process in the judicatories of 
this church, it is expressly laid down that no crime 
shall be considered as established by a single wit- 
?iess, and if this woman is worthy of credit she is 
but a single witness — it is true there are more wit- 
nesses that say that Mary Albertson told them or 
insinuated to them that Mr Wentz was the father of 
the child, but had she told the same story to twenty 
persons and they all had appeared before the session 
and testified to the same it could not affect Mr. 
Wentz; but admitting these statements to be true, it 
fs no legal proof of the alledged fact— the legal proof 



181 



Is the oath of the woman and not her simple tales 
among her comrades and acquaintance. In Penn- 
sylvania it is enacted by statute that, 

" Any single or unmarried woman having- a child born of 
" her body, the sgme shall be sufficient proof to convict such 
*' single or unmarried woman of fornication ; and the man by 
** such woman charged to be the father of such child shall be 
M the reputed father ; and she persisting in the extremity of 
" labour, or afterwards in open court upon the trial of such 
" person so charged, the same shall be given in evidence in 
* c order to convict such person of fornication." 

read's digest p . 148. 

This law puts much in the power of the woman. 
She may charge a man to be the* father of the child, 
and in the time of her extremity in labour, if she 
persists in the charge, or afterwards in open court 
upon the trial of such man for fornication, she, upon 
oath, swears to the truth of the charge, the same 
shall be given in evidence to convict such person of 
fornication; but this is not proof of his being the ab- 
solute father; it is only proof that he is the reputed 
father: — and here we have only the affirmation of 
Elizabeth Hagner that Mary Albertson told her that 
the child was Mr. Wentz's and no other man's; but 
when asked by the session, Did Mr. Wentz ever 
acknowledge to you that he was criminal with Mary 
Alb ert son ? — an s w e re d, 

" No otherwise than what is stated; the thing ap- 
" pearing to be admitted by his readiness to do every 
" thing that was necessary for her, and I never asked 
rt him the question." 

Now let me ask does Mary Albertson agree with 
or contradict this witness on this point. Let her 
speak for herself. In answer to a question put by the 
session, 

" Did you not state to Mrs. Hagner and others, 
" that Mr. Wentz was the father of the child?" she 
" said, " never; nor did I ever- give them reason to 
w suppose this. §>ues. Have you not made confes- 
sion of your situation to Mrs. Hagner, Grace Bow- 



132 



41 ker and your sister? Ans. I did. §>ues. Please 
fr4 to state what you said to them? Ans. I acknow- 
44 ledged what my situation was, asked their pardon, 
44 and requested if any spoke about me, to say that 
44 she talked about going to the country. Qiies. 
44 Did not the persons to whom you had made con- 
44 fession of your situation inquire who was the cause 
14 of it. Ans. They did; but I requested that they 
44 would ask nothing about it. I was ashamed to 
44 own my intimacy with a man with whom I had so 
44 short an acquaintance." 

Well, did Mary Albertson persevere in charging 
Mr. Wentz to be the father of the child in her ex- 
tremity of labour? No — she then makes her decla- 
ration that Isaac Burdock is the father, Mrs. Koch- 
ler, who nursed her in her confinement, says, that 

" The young woman, after the child was born, 
44 told her that the father of the child was Isaac Bur- 
44 dock, who had gone to the city of New York; this 
44 was a few days after the birth of her child. Be- 
44 fore the affidavits were made by the mother of the 
44 child, she told the witness who was the father; 
44 never varied in her statement, but adhered to the 
44 assertion that Isaac Burdock was the father of the 
44 child. Never heard any particulars of Mr. Bur- 
44 dock; she understood that he had been residing in 
44 the city transiently; the child is a daughter; the 
44 young woman desired that she might be kept as 
44 privately as possible. Burdock left the city soon 
44 after the pregnancy was ascertained, otherwise the 
44 young woman would have taken measures to get 
44 something from him. Burdock gave reason to 
44 suppose that he would marry the girl. The young 
44 -woman is now at Mr. Wentz's waiting to get a 
44 place. Questions put by Mr. Wentz. Did I ever 
44 enjoin secrecy, or did Mrs. Wentz, to keep the 
44 young woman private? Ans. Never. §>\ies. Was 
44 I ever in the house except in company with Mr. 
44 Gartiey? Ans. Never before, but has been since. 



133 



"The 18th of September was the day Mr. Wentz 
" called with Mr. Gartley and Mr. Green. Mr. 
" Wentz nor Mrs. Wentz never paid any thing for 
u the young woman's support, nor ever received any 
u promise of indemnity in any way — nor ever knew 
** that the young woman ever received any supplies 
* from Mr. Burdock. £h/es. Had you any reason 
" to suppose that I was the father of the child? Ans. 
" Never — never saw Mr. Wentz using any improper 
* 4 familiarities with the young woman. Mrs. Koch- 
44 ler is a married woman, the daughter of a Mr. 
ct Siebert — the young woman resided about ten weeks 
" with her, and four dollars per week was paid du- 
" ring her confinement and one dollar fifty cents, 
4t before and afterward. From her confidence in the 
u young woman, she believed Burdock really to be 
* " the father of the child, believing the young woman 
** never to have had connexion with any other. 
u Nothing ever occurred since her acquaintance with 
** the young woman, that would lead her to suppose 
u that she was a person of easy access, or would re- 
41 ceive the improper attentions of the other sex. 
u The child was born the 14th September." 

This is the person from whom we are to look for 
the truth; she who attended her from the^ seventh 
or eighth of August, till the birth of the child, who 
had attended her in the extremity of labour, who had 
heard her declaration at the perilous moment, and 
who had witnessed her declaration of the name of 
the father in the presence of three other witnesses, 
on the 4th day after the accouchment, two of whom, 
namely Mr. Gartley and Mr. Green, were totally 
disinterested. Mark here the conduct of Mr. Wentz, 
he takes in company with him two respectable and 
responsible men to be present at any confession the 
unfortunate Man Albertson may make in a moment 
of such extreme peril. Here is no previous conni- 
vance or preparation; all is exe« uted in the most 
honourable manner. Dots Mr. Wentz propose any 

M 



134 



leading question? No. Mr. Gartley tells what 
passed, but hear it in his own correct words. 

" That between the 14th and 18th September last, 
u I was applied to by Mr. Wentz to go with some 
" other respectable citizen to be present at a declara- 
<c tion to be made by Mary Albertson, that he ac- 
ct cordingiy did on the day of the last date, accom- 
u pany Mr. John Green and Mr. Wentz, to the 
" house of Mr. and Mrs. Kochler in Race street, 
" when they were introduce^ to the place and cham- 
" ber in which Mary Albertson was confined; and 
" at her request, I prepared a statement in writing 
" which after being twice read, was subscribed by 
w her, and witnessed by Mrs. Kochler, Mr. Green 
" and myself. This statement was afterwards quali- 
" fied to by Mary Albertson, before Peter Christian 
" esq. one of the aldermen of the city, and which 
cc goes to exonerate Mr. Wentz from the accusation 
" circulating against him that he was the father of 
" the child of which she had been delivered. Some 
" time after, viz. on the 11th day of last month, I 
" was present when Mary Albertson, before the 
" same alderman, declared upon oath, that Isaac 
" Burdock of the city of New York, was the father 
" of the child. Mr. Wentz was very desirous that 
" the business should be brought before the session 
" of the church." 

The statement drawn up by Mr. Gartley and sub- 
scribed by Mary Albertson in the presence of three 
witnesses, was laid before the session; but on some 
account, which I can neither understand nor explain, 
it is not included in the body of the proceedings and 
testimony now laid before the presbytery. The oaths 
of Mrs. Kochler and Mary Albertson, which are in 
the volume of testimony, may be considered as a 
substitute, yet I think the declaration of Mary Albert- 
son on the 18th September, and her oath declaring 
the father of the child, both proved according to law, 
ought to be on the file of the session, that the appel- 



135 



lant might avail himself of the advantages they would 
afford his cause, now before the presbytery. They 
go to show the truth of what Mary Albertson affirm- 
ed before the session, in answer to the questions put 
to her by the session, as thus: 

44 Shies. Are you a single woman? Ans. I am. 
" Shies. Have you had the misfortune to have had a 
" child lately? Ans. I have. ®hies. Do you know 
" Isaac Burdock? Ans. I do. ®j/es. Is he a sin- 
" gle man? Ans. I believe he is. Suites. How long 
44 have you known him? Ans. Since December 
44 last. Suites. What business did he follow? Ans. 
44 I do not know; he was a foreigner, ^ues. Who 
44 are his friends and acquaintances? A)is. I don't 
44 know. ®hies. Where did you first meet with him,? 
" Ans. At Mr. Ballentine's meeting, Spring Garden. 
44 ®hies. Does he live in this city now? Ans. No; 
w he is not here that I know of. ®>iies. Where does 
44 he live? Ans. I believe in New York; he told 
" me he was going there. <$>ues t When did he tell 
44 you he was going to New York? Ans. In March 
44 last. §hies. Where could he be found in New 
" York? Ans. I do not know. Shies. Did you 
" make no inquiry how a letter could be sent to him? 
44 Ans. No; I did not wish to have any thing to do 
" with him. S^ues. Does he correspond with you 
** now, or have you ever received a letter from him? 
44 Ans, I do not correspond with him, nor have I 
w ever received a letter from him; when he went 
44 away, I expected him to be back in July, and sup- 
" posed his motive was to go off entirely, and do no- 
44 thing for me. ®hies. How long have you lived 
44 with Mr. Wentz? Ans. Between eight and nine 
44 years, twites. Did Mr. Wentz ever take any im- 
44 proper liberties with you? Ans. None at all. 
44 ghtes. Did you complain to others that Mr. Wentz 
44 had taken improper liberties with you? Ans. No; 
44 to no one. §hies. Who is the father of your child? 
44 Ans. Isaac Burdock, ®hies. When had you the 
44 misfortune first to be criminally connected with 



136 



him? Ans. Some time in December. Qiies. How 

" long before this had you been acquainted with him? 
44 Ans, A few weeks. 6>ues. In what place w T as it? 
44 Declines an answer. Ihe question was repeated, 
44 and again declined. Suites. Was the same crimi- 
44 nal intercourse kept up whilst he remained in the 
44 city? Ans. It was continued till he knew of my 
4:4 situation. Shies. Where did you usually meet to- 
44 gether? Ans. Always at Mr. Ballentine's meet* 
44 ing. §hies. In what manner did you become ac- 
* 4 quainted; who introduced you? Ans, No one* 
<4 Ques. Did you become acquainted with him in 
44 the church, or out of the church? Ajis. W 7 hen, or 
44 after, the church was broken up, I fell in with him. 
44 ®>ues. Did he ever come home with you? Ans, 
44 Yes. §>»es. Did he ever go in with you? Ans, 
4t Once. Shies. Who saw him there? Ans. No 
44 one; the family was gone to bed. §h/es. Was it 
44 customary to leave the door open for you? Ans, 
* 4 Yes; the candle was left burning above, and the 
44 door unlocked. $$hies. Your female companions, 
44 with whom you were intimate — did they go with 
44 you to the church? Ans. No; I have no female 
44 acquaintances up there, ^hies. Did you ever meet 
44 him going to or coming from Methodist meeting? 
" Ans. Never. <2hies. Do you know the age of Mr. 
44 Burdock? Ans. I do not know? §hies. What 
44 was the appearance of the man? Ans. Middle 
44 size. Ques. In the frequent intercourse you had 
44 with him, did you never ask him what were his 
44 circumstances, or what business he followed? Ans. 
44 Not at all. Ques. Did he ever offer you marriage? 
64 A?7S, He did, and it was the second time he came 
;C home with me; this was before our criminal con- 
44 nexion. ^iies. How long before the criminal in- 
tercourse? Ans. He made it a second or third 
44 time he came home with me. Suites, After the 
** proposal of marriage by him and consent on your 
* part to have him, did you not make some inquiry 
* 4 relative to his circumstances and character? Ans* 



137 



" No, I made none. I had foolishly yielded. gfoies. 
44 Did you at that time, not only consent to marry 
44 him but yielded to him? Ans. Yes; and which I 
44 believe will ever prove my ruin. ®hies. After 
44 having yielded, did you not urge him to comply 
44 with the promise of marriage? Ans. I did so, but 
44 not till after I discovered myself to be in a family 
44 way. §>ues. When you urged him to marry, what 
41 was his reply, or how did he treat you? Ans. He 
44 said that he could not; his circumstances were 
44 such that he could not marry. §>ues. It was natu- 
44 ral for you to inquire, when he thus declined, 
tc what his business was? Ans. I did not inquire. 
44 §>ues. After you found yourself to be pregnant, 
4t did you not feel the importance of urging him to 
44 fulfil his promise and of pursuing measures to 
44 oblige him to do so? Ans. He treated me so very 
44 coolly that I wished to have nothing more to do 
44 with him, and he promised to pay my expenses but 
44 did not." 

The testimony of Mary Albertson being sufficiently 
sifted by the session, it goes clearly to show that 
Mr. Wentz was not guilty of the charge made by 
Mr. Robert Murphey and Mr. Daniel Smith; and if 
the charge had been made for a criminal offence be- 
fore a court and jury, the allegation would have been 
literally scouted out of doors. But the session of 
the Second Presbyterian church chose to act upon 
it, and their judgment, if paramount to our criminal 
court, would go to his conviction of fornication or 
adultery, and subject him to the punishment of fine 
and imprisonment. The testimony of Mary Albert- 
son would, under all the circumstances of this case, 
fix the crime of fornication upon Isaac Burdock, and 
would as certainly acquit Samuel Wentz, notwith- 
standing all that has been said by Elizabeth Hagner, 
of the confessions she pretends to have received from 
Mr. Wentz, and the communications of Mary Al- 
bertson made to her from time to time. Mary had 
M 2 



IBS 



lived in the family a long time, say eight or nine 
years. Mr. Wentz must have resisted the tempta- 
tion under more captivating circumstances. She made 
no communications on this head to either of the wit- 
nesses on the part of the church that can possibly 
bring on a conviction of the charges. What Eleanor 
Hagner, Grace Bowker, Mary Snyder, John Gilder, 
or her sister Eliza Albertson testifies, is all hearsay, 
and nothing more. The testimony then of Elizabeth 
Hagner is all that remains, and Hannah Westcott 
and Mr. Hughes both speak of her as a talkative and 
mischief making woman. 

I have now gone through all the testimony and I 
do not find but one witness that tends in any legal 
way to establish an illicit commerce between Mr. 
Wentz and Mary Albertson; one witness, however 
pure and unimpeached her character might be, is not 
sufficient, according to the forms of process in the 
judicatories of this church, to establish a crime 
against the defendant, of course the session could not 
convict him of illicit commerce with Mary Albert- 
son and of being the father of the child of which she 
has lately been delivered; but it is in proof before 
you that Isaac Burdock is the father; can it be ex- 
pected that Mr. Wentz is to travel in pursuit of this 
man by sea and land, and bring him to answer in a 
court of law for the crime of fornication, in order to 
relieve himself from the suspicions of the session? I 
presume not. 

As I remarked before, every man is supposed inno- 
cent until he is proved guilty; and it is slander against 
him to declare upon such testimony that Samuel 
Wentz is guilty of a criminal offence, punishable by 
our penal laws. If he was charged with larceny, 
would the church find him guilty of that crime upon 
hearsay evidence? No; . they would require two 
witnesses at least, to the fact of stealing. Would a 
grand jury in our criminal courts even find a bill of 
"indictment against him on hearsay evidence? No; but 
if they should by some misapprehension find a true 



139 



bill, the judges would not permit such evidence to be 
given to a petty jury, but would direct his immediate 
acquittal. 

I am willing to admit that some strong impressions 
have been made on the minds of some of the mem- 
bers of the session against Mr. Wentz; but these im- 
pressions are not conformable to what ought to have 
resulted from the examination, and what I venture 
to say would not follow, if these charges against Mr. 
Wentz were taken up de nova by the same members 
of session. In conclusion I trust that the presby- 
tery will now reverse the judgment of the session, 
and re-establish the appellant in all his church rights, 
and receive him into full communion as a matter 
of right and strict justice, without waiting for 
the satisfactory evidence of repentance for a great 
and heinous crime which it has not been proved that 
he had ever committted. I have done. 



[The publisher, in offering- the arguments of Mr. Henry and 
Doctor Janeway, (the moderator of the session) to the public, is 
compelled to state the difficulty under which he laboured in pro- 
curing any thing like what we believe was originally delivered 
before the presbytery, and if any defect or imperfection should be 
observed, either in the " exact order in which the remarks were 
made," or if they should be found not " substantially correct" 
as the stenographer, Mr. Lloyd, took them from the several 
speakers mouths, his apology must be, in the first place, the 
difficulty in getting the notes of trial transcribed by Mr. Lloyd; 
and in the second place, the impossibility of obtaining from the 
worthy speakers, in favour of the decision of session, the 
genuine report of their speeches as taken by Mr. Lloyd, at the 
time they were severally made; he having been engaged by Mr. 
Wentz for the express purpose; and who afterwards handed 
copies of their speeches to each of them for correction and re- 
rision, and who afterwards refused to return them to the pub- 
lisher in their original form or substance. Dr. Janeway and 
Mr. Henry were waited on, and respectfully requested to return 



140 



the original copy,-— they both refused, and stated that they 
knew no person in the business but Mr. Lloyd — -no doubt, they 
understood each other. Mr. Henry, however, has furnished 
us with a copy of his remarks, which does not contain a word 
in the hand-writing of the stenographer. Dr. Janeway, after 
detaining the copy a week, returned it to the stenographer in a 
mutilated state.] 

Mr, Alexander Henry, a member of the session of the 

Second Presbyterian church* 
Mr. Moderator, 

I am neither inclined nor qualified for the task of 
profitably entertaining this reverend body. By this 
time, it is probable most of the members are desirous 
that no further remarks be made. I am not in the 
habit of public speaking, and if I were, it would be 
presumption in me to attempt to inform this presby- 
tery. The testimony on your table, and the decision 
of session from which Mr. Wentz has appealed, can- 
not be altered or changed in its essential features by 
any thing I could say, nor do I suppose that even the 
forensic eloquence of our brother Bradford, has 
changed any of your minds. Our brother has indeed 
indulged himself in an uncommon defence of his 
client; the truth, however, still remains unchanged. 

My object in rising to speak on this subject is 
merely to state, that the session did not take up the 
case of Mr. Wentz hastily. From various quarters 
they individually heard reports unfavourable to the 
moral character of Mr. Wentz. At a meeting of 
the session on other business, the case of Mr. Wentz 
was mentioned, when it was found that every indi- 
vidual of the session had heard more or less of the 
charge that was publicly circulating against him. It 
was then deemed expedient to appoint a committee 
to make inquiry into the state of facts, and to call on 
Mr. Wentz, and endeavour to get him to confess his 
crime, if guilty. After a lapse of ten days, the com- 
mittee reported to session, that they had with care 



141 



and diligence endeavoured to obtain all the informa- 
tion in their power, and that they regretted to say, 
that from what they had heard, and the circumstan- 
ces which were connected with it, it appeared to 
them that the cause of religion required that Mr. 
Wentz should be brought to trial; that-they had also 
seen Mr. Wentz, who was himself desirous that the 
session should investigate the subject, and avowed 
his innocence of the charge. Another committee 
was appointed to have conversation with Mr. Wentz, 
who still expressed his strong desire to come before 
the session, and again declared his innocence. On 
the next meeting of session, the clerk was directed 
to cite Mr. Wentz before them, to receive from Mr. 
Wentz, a list of his evidences, and where the wit- 
Besses were of our church, to cite them to appear, 
and where they belonged to any sister church, re- 
spectfully to request their attendance. The same 
rule was observed with regard to witnesses against 
Mr. Wentz; the testimony obtained from the wit- 
nesses, both for and against Mr. Wentz, is before 
this reverend body: our brother Bradford has indul- 
ged himself very freely, regarding the manner in 
which the testimony was taken, and its form. The 
session are not lawyers, Mr. Moderator, but it is to 
be hoped they are not destitute of common sense. 
The gentleman might have spared himself the trou- 
ble, and saved your time, had he attended to the fact 
that the witnesses in this case against Mr. Wentz 
were delicate, modest females — one of them the sis- 
ter of the unhappy mother of the child, and two or 
three others, the intimate and bosom friends of this 
guilty woman, all of them members of a sister church, 
and in good standing. Under these circumstances, 
what could the session do, but receive the testimony 
in the way the witnesses chose to give it. It was 
deemed proper that each should tell to session the 
' facts in their own way, and that as they narrated 
them, their words be written down, word for word. 
This rule was observed in every case, either for or 



142 



against the prosecution. But, Mr. Moderator, it 
never entered into the mind of session, that every- 
thing said or written was testimony to the point in 
the case before session, nor will this be contended, 
but it will be contended that sufficient testimony was 
received, and is contained in the papers before you, 
to warrant the decision of session. I said, Mr. 
Moderator, that the principal witnesses in this case 
against Mr. Wentz, are virtuous, modest females; 
the testimony they gave could never have been ob- 
tained from them, but under the binding sense of 
duty on their part, and while before session, they 
were for the most part, in tears.* This presbytery 
will, I am sure, agree with me, that the manner, and 
circumstances in which a witness is placed, give fre- 
quently much force and energy to his testimony. In 
this case, it was not without its effect on the minds 
of session. Every question which Mr. Wentz chose 
to put to the witness, was answered by them, except 
in one case where the quebtion evidently had no 
bearing on the subject before session, and appeared 
to be intended to criminate the witness herself. In 
fact, Mr. Moderator, the sittings of session were 
continued until Mr. Wentz declared himself satis- 
fied!, and until session had satisfied themselves that 
no further light could be thrown on the subject. 

Our brother Bradford, while he has professed 
great respect for the session, has, throughout his 
whcle defence of Mr. Wentz, plainly intimated a 
proceeding on the part of the session unfriendly 
to Mr. Wentz. He has endeavoured to impress 

* What a pity for these virtuous and modest females! — Poor 
thing-s, they shed tears — Mr. Henry says so ! Did he actually 
see the teardrops trickle down their blushing cheeks? He says 
he did — and we venture to affirm that he was the only gentle- 
man present who did. — Pub. 

f This is not so — and if the reader will please to refer to page 
76, he will find it there recorded, that upon the question being 
put to Mr. Wentz if he was satisfied with the proceedings of the 
session; he replied that he was not.-~PuB. 



143 



the minds of all present, that Mr. Wentz is an in- 
jured and oppressed man, and that the session had 
in Jnlged both their feelings and wishes in convict- 
ing him. Nothing, Mr. Moderator, can be farther 
from the fact. I appeal to the feelings of all who 
hear me, whether there can be any duty so painful 
to a member of session, as to be under the necessity 
of cutting off from church privileges, a member who 
has been in good standing in the church. No, sir, 
it cannot be done without much pain. Sessions 
gladly receive into the communion suitable members, 
but cannot lightly cut them off; and the fact is in 
this case, that all the session, as far as I know or 
heard, had their prejudices enlisted in favou* of Mr. 
Wentz, and most sincerely desired to be able con- 
scientiously to acquit him. Nothing but a sense of 
duty to the church, to their own minds, and particu- 
larly to the Head of the church, produced the deci- 
sion from which Mr. Wentz appeals. 

Mr. Moderator, could the session be now convin- 
ced that Mr. Wentz is an innocent man, they would 
rejoice in it; for my part, sir, I would go to him, 
take him by the hand, acknowledge my error and 
ask his forgiveness. But, sir, nothing that has yet 
been heard by me, from his learned advocate, alters 
my opinion, or even makes me hesitate on the sub- 
ject. It is not my intention, Mr. Moderator, to go 
over the testimony before you; I will, however, just 
state, what does not clearly appear from testimony, 
that Isaac Burdock, who this unhappy woman says 
is the father of her child, has appeared to the session 
to have no existence — she herself did not know him, 
none of the witnesses knev- him, nobody could be 
found that had ever heard of his name — he was said 
to be a resident of New York — members of the ses- 
sion wrote on there for information, and were inform- 
ed that no such person, it was believed, was now or 
lately had been a resident of New York. In fact, 
the session believed that no such person did exist, 
and, if I am not much mistaken, this presbytery will 
think so too. 



144 



I have now done, sir. If my beloved pastor, 
with whom I have the happiness to be associated at 
this time in the defence of session, chooses to make 
any remarks on the testimony, I am persuaded that 
the presbytery would rather attend to him, than to 
any thing I can offer. One word more to my brother 
Bradford, who really seems to stand very well with 
himself. From all he has said, regarding the duty 
of sessions, one would be led to infer that when he 
dies, wisdom will die with him. If he has made this 
impression on any mind, I am sure such individual 
will cheerfully join me in the Spanish salutation to 
my brother, u May you live a thousand years." 

When Mr. Henry had concluded, the Rev. Dr. J. J. 
Janeway rose and spoke as follows: 

Mr. Moderator — I am not as well prepared to 
show what is the legal bearing of ail the testimony 
on the record of the session, of which I was mode- 
rator, as the brother who has advocated this appeal, 
Unless I was to go over all the testimony, and make 
as many idle remarks as he has done. Indeed it was 
my intention to leave the managment of the cause 
almost intirely to my colleague Mr. Henry, presu- 
ming that the reading of the testimony, accompanied 
with a few observations, would be sufficient to insure 
the affirming the session's judgment. It was on 
Monday last I had an intimation, that legal counsel 
would be employed by the appellant; but since that 
day I have been too much engaged in other business 
to allow me leisure to prepare for the present cause. 

Before you heard the professional counsel, it was 
thought that Presbytery had a question of but little 
difficulty to deride, but as the appellant proved him- 
self unable to plead his own cause, he was permiued 
to employ an elder belonging to another judicatory 
than that which tried the cause, and thus it happens 
that Mr. Bradford is here in his present character, 
with ail the advantages of being fully informed and 



145 



instructed on all the points he has here made — and I 
presume he has received a fee or compensation propor- 
tioned to the length of the speech he has made this 
day before you. I believe it is a practice with ad- 
vocates to proportion their speeches to the amount of 
their fee; I do not mean that it is confined to one par- 
ticular advocate. The study of the law, nay the 
science of the law itself, is formed in an infec- 
tious atmosphere — even the courts of justice are 
contaminated. When a counsellor is pleading a cause 
which he knows is not just, he lends his whole abili- 
ties to support it, with the same industry and cheer- 
fulness as if he knew he was pleading the cause of 
righteousness; all is right, though done in the face 
of truth, if he obtains his object. I do not charge our 
brother Thomas Bradford, a ruling elder of the fifth 
Presbyterian church, but Thomas Bradford jr. esq. 
a barrister and counsellor at law, the advocate of 
Samuel Wentz, whom he is employed to serve, and 
for whom he has this day made great exertions, and 
seems determined that he will not labour in vain. 

[Rev. Mr. Patterson interrupting- Doctor Janeway, said, he 
did not think this course was in order — the conduct of the ad- 
vocate was not a question for their consideration. Rev. Dr. 
Wilson concurred in Mr. Patterson's suggestion. Mr. Bradford 
hoped the Rev. gentleman would not be interrupted, but be 
permitted to take his own course in the argument.] 

Rev. Doctor Janeway continued — I was just com- 
ing to my conclusion when I was interrupted. Now 
after all I have said, if brother Bradford will lay 
aside the advocate, and take his seat in the court, 
I should have no reason to fear as to the vote he 
would give on the occasion. The session which 
tried this cause, and passed their sentence against 
Mr. Wentz, if they had any prejudice or predic- 
tion it was on the side of the accused, as they have 
declared in the report they would have rejoiced in 
his acquittal, if the testimony had not bound down 
their judgment to decide the contrary way; under 
this compulsion the whole body of the session gave 

N 



146 



that judgment, from which Mr. Wentz has appealed; 
and 1 am thankful that I am supported by such an 
excellent bench of elders as those who fill those offi- 
ces in the second Presbyterian church of this city. 
Their judgment ought to have influence, and though 
they are not men of legal knowledge, yet they are 
men of such intelligence and experience, that they 
may be safely relied on. Where is the man in this 
house, or in this city, who would be unwilling to 
trust them in a decision on either his property, his 
character or his life?— then the man who was tried 
by them, can have, in the opinion of the members of 
this church, but very slender grounds on which to 
erect a complaint; yet I still wish that the truth 
may be made manifest, if Mr. Wentz is innocent. 
On this point, the present court will judge for itself, 
under a due examination of the evidence contained 
in the report. But let me remark, that in sessions, 
the same degree of strictness is not observed as in 
courts of common or municipal law in receiving tes- 
timony — the authority we exercise is not so trammel- 
led by forms, as to preclude all but strictly legal 
evidence: much testimony is sometimes heard which 
is irrelevant; witnesses are not interrupted in order to 
give opportunity of making long speeches on each side 
of the cause- — they let the witnesses tell their own sto- 
ry in their own way; and the session considers how 
much is relevant, and what ought to bear on the 
points in making up their judgment. 

Another observation—Suppose a man under the 
criminal law, tried for a particular crime, and if that 
cannot be proved, but another shall be, the man is 
cleared: for example, if he is charged with murder 
in the first degree, but that charge not being proved, 
though another part be fully proved, namely, that he 
killed the man without those circumstances which 
are required to prove murder of the first degree, and 
that he has been actually guilty of manslaughter, he 
is acquitted altogether, and cannot be tried again for 
either of those offences; I do not affirm that this is 



147 



universally the case; but in ecclesiastical courts, 
though a man be not convicted of the particular 
crime charged against him, yet he may be convicted 
of another offence ot the same nature, though of less 
guilt; he maybe tried for adultery, but it being 
discovered that he was a single man at the time, 
the crime only amounts to fornication; yet for this 
offence as well the other, he would be deprived of 
the privileges and sealing ordinances of the church. 

Mr. Wentz was received into the church four or 
five years before this charge was brought against him, 
and always conducted himself like a good professing 
christian. When I heard of the report of a criminal 
connexion, I was grieved because he was a profes- 
sing christian, and in communion of the church of 
which I am pastor. I sincerely hoped he would 
prove himself clear. When I saw the oath of the 
young woman which was intended to clear him, I 
rejoiced because his character appeared to be protect- 
ed; the rumour still prevailed, but when afterwards, I 
heard that the young woman had taken an oath, de- 
claring Isaac Burdock to be the father, I did not see 
what evidence could be adduced to affect him. The 
rumour, however, still continued and the matter was 
brought before the session, that they were compelled 
to inquire into his conduct, and after all the evi- 
dence that was presented to the session was exam- 
ined, I was constrained to change my opinion, and 
in the fear of God my conscience was compelled to 
give the judgment which was pronounced. I was 
very much grieved that I was so compelled, and even 
now, if Mr. Wentz can be proved innocent, I will 
recive him gladly, and partake with him in the holy 
rights of the church. 

I will now direct your attention to the testimony, 
and take a cursory view of that upon which our brother 
Bradford has descanted so much at length. The first 
is Mrs. Kochler, who appeared for the defendant, 
what does she testify? that u Mrs, Wentz came to 
her house about the 7th or 8th of August, and inqui- 



148 



red about a lodging for the young woman during 
her confinement; that the young woman was to pay 
for herself, the father was gone off and would pay 
nothing; she nursed her," and now to the point, why 
4 four days after the child was born, the young wo- 
man told her that the father of the child was Isaac 
Burdock *who had gone to the city of New York. 
This declaration was made before the affidavit was 
made by the mother of the child; she never varied 
in her statement, but adhered to the assertion that 
Burdock was the father of the child; never heard 
any particulars of Mr. Burdock; the young woman 
desired she might be kept as privately as possible. 
Burdock left the city soon after the pregnancy 
was ascertained, and^ from her confidence in the 
soung woman, she really believes Burdock to be 
the father, believing the young woman never to have 
had connexion with any other." In short this testi- 
mony goes no farther than to show that Mrs. Koch- 
ier believed all that the young woman told, whether 
true or false: u she was paid by the young woman for 
her board, and so was the midwife also;" so let that 
pass. 

The next witness for the defendant is William 
Tatem. His testimony was taken early in the trial, 
because he was from home, living in New Jersey, 
was very aged, and could not remain without incon- 
venience — He testified that " Mary Albertson served 
her time with him from four or five years of age 
and stayed with him not less than fourteen years; he 
never had any reason to complain of her conduct; 
his wife was of the same opinion with himself; they 
never had a girl in the house that behaved better," 
and in answer to the question by Mr. Wentz, tl Do 
you think she would be guilty of taking a false oath? 
I do not think she would; if she would she has de- 
ceived me." This may all be very true, and yet, if 
he had been asked do you think she would be guilty 
of fornication? he no doubt would have given the 
same answer: yet it is now manifest that she has 



149 



committed that crime, whether she has delivered 
false testimony, will be seen on the face of the 
record. 

What does Mr. John H. Gartley testify? — he ap- 
peared before the session on the 9th of last Novem- 
ber, when he stated all the facts he knew in relation 
to the visit made by him and Mr. Green, at the re- 
quest, and in company with Mr. W entz, to the lodg- 
ings of Mary Albertson, where, at her request, he 
prepared a statement in writing, which, after being 
twice read, was subscribed by her and witnessed by 
Mrs. Kochler, Mr. Green and myself. The state- 
ment goes to exonerate Mr. Wentz from the accu- 
sation circulating against him, that he was the father 
of the child of which she had lately been delivered. 
No questions were asked Mr. Gartley, either by Mr. 
Wentz or by the session; yet he appeared again to 
give further testimony on the 11th of the same 
month, and what was it that he had then to offer? 
Why, that two things operated on his mind to satisfy 
him of Mr. Wentz's innocency: First, that the 
greatest harmony prevailed in Mr. Wentz's family. 
The next was the great anxiety of Mr. Wentz to 
compel Marv Albertson to declare on oath who was 
the father of the child. It was easy for Mr. Wentz 
to assume this anxiety, he had time for thinking on 
the subject, and planning his scheme of defence; he 
had requested Mr. Gartley to consult a lawyer and 
a guardian of the poor, whether Mary Albertson 
could legally be compelled to swear the child — it is 
a non sequiter to say that he is innocent, because he 
has pursued these measures. I say nothing of the 
credibility of this witness; I do not charge him with 
a misrepresentation of the facts; but they amount to 
nothing, and all that he knows, from the intimacy he 
has in the family, of the conduct or probable conduct 
of Mrs. Wentz, in case she knew or supposed her 
husband to be the father of the child, is on his part 
belief, and so he answers Mr. Wentz's question, mere 
44 From your knowledge of Mrs. Wentz 9 do you 

n2 



150 



think she would do for Mary Albertson as she did, 
supposing me to be the father of the child? From 
my knowledge of Mrs Wentz, and the intimacy I 
have in the family, I believe that instead of befriend- 
ing her, she would feel the greatest animosity, and 
would not be willing to let her into the house, or 
into her presence. Mrs Wentz also in several con • 
versations I had with her, stated, that she believed 
the reason why Mary Albertson declined swearing 
the child, was, that the father would come back and 
do something for her if she did not swear the child 
to him, and that she was well persuaded of Mr. 
Wentz's innocence. This was stated to me in the ab- 
sence of Mr. Wentz." Mr. Gartley was present at the 
time the oath was taken before Alderman Christian; 
his presence there is of no importance after what 
has been stated on oath by the alderman himself. 

I will now proceed to the examination of the testi- 
mony of this unfortunate woman herself; no person 
can doubt of her knowledge, and the session knew 
that much depended on what she should testify to 
clear Mr. Wentz; they were, therefore, bound to ex- 
amine minutely, to search and sift the witness's de- 
claration in order to discover the plain unvarnished 
truth without gloss or colouring, and strip off the 
masque which covered it from less scrutinizing eyes. 
No questions, however, were asked which could 
lead her into difficulty; there was no danger of her 
being entrapped whilst she kept to the truth. Ex- 
amine this testimony, and then let me ask, can any 
man of understanding say that she has kept to the 
truth; the contradictions are many and various; im- 
probable things do sometimes occur, but this testi- 
mony is more improbable than any I ever heard. I 
am bold to say credit cannot be given to it. 

She was a witness on behalf of Mr. Wentz, and 
he was desired to ask her such questions as he 
thought proper. He replied to this that the session 
would first put their questions, and then he would 
put his. The answers given by the witness to the 



questions put by them, show that she had had a child 
by Isaac Burdock; she knew him in December last, 
and he did not leave her till shortly after she had 
discovered that she was pregnant; during this time 
she never learnt whether he was a single or married 
man, tho' she believed he was a single man; she did 
not know what business he followed; she did not 
know where he lived; he told her he was going to 
New York; she never inquired how a letter might 
be sent to him; when he went away she expected he 
would be back in July, and suppose his motive was 
to go off entirely and do nothing for her. How irre- 
concilable is this expectation and supposition. On 
being asked when she had the misfortune first to be 
criminally connected with him, answered sometime 
in December, when she had been acquainted with 
him only a few weeks. She relused at first to tell at 
what place it was — she afterwards said it was at Mr. 
Wentz's. She was asked, was the same criminal 
intercourse kept up while Burdock remained in the 
city; she answered, that it w T as continued .until he 
knew of my situation; on being asked some time af- 
terwards, how often were you together when crimi- 
nality took place? She answered, never but once — she 
was desired to consider that question well? She then 
answered, I never gave myself up to him (I believe) 
but once. This is certainly a fact which she must 
positively, personally know, and yet you find her an- 
swers to the first positive, and afterwards qualified 
with I believe; and in the next question, as Mr. Bur- 
dock frequently came home with you from Mr. Bal- 
lentine's meeting, did he not frequently press you to 
yield? He did so, but I never gave myself up to him 
but once. I believe it is impossible for a woman to 
doubt whether she has had intercourse with a man 
once or twice or more frequently. Shall we rely on 
such a witness? When Mr. Latimer and Mr. Jau- 
don called upon you, did you not tell them, that if 
you did not expose the father of the child he would 
jdo something for you? I did, because I expected 



152 



him here in July or August, and that he would do 
something for me if I did not expose him. Know- 
ing that those gentlemen who were of a committee 
to inquire into this affair understood it in another 
sense; she was asked if that was the only reason you 
had for not exposing him? In part, and another reason 
was that I did not wish to let it be known, that I had 
given myself up to a person on so short an acquain- 
tance — again — were these the only reasons? We 
found we could not depend upon the deposition of 
such a woman, and therefore her testimony had no 
weight with us. 

Now for Massey Evans; her character was im- 
peached and afterwards sustained by three witness- 
es, namely Margaret Whiteman, who " had known 
her about six years, and from what she knew of her, 
she considered her oath might be relied upon. She 
is a professor of religion, worshipping at the Acade- 
my; she believed her to be a just and upright person, 
but could not say any thing as to her piety. Ques- 
tion by the session. Has she been a talking woman? 
Ans. She is a woman of poor education, and believe 
her to be a good hearted person. Question by Mr. 
W entz. Do you not know that she has been suspend- 
ed from church privileges in consequence of bad beha- 
viour in the neighbourhood? Ans. Not as I know 
of, or remember to have heard. §>ites. Do you 
know if she is in the communion of the church now? 
Ans. I am pretty certain that she is." 

Second, Jacob Walter, 4i had known her several 
years, both before her marriage and since; he had 
known her as a member of the society. There is no 
doubt in his mind but her testimony may be fully 
relied upon; he had no doubt of it in his mind, he 
would have full confidence in her; he had never se 
any thing to induce him to think otherwise. ®>iie 
Is she a member in the communion of the church at 
this time? Ans. She is; I have no doubt on my 
mind but she is, having never heard of her being 
suspended from church privileges. Mr. Wentz de- 



153 



clined putting any question." And the third witness, 
Margaret Artist answered, that " she had known 
Massey Evans more than five years. She belongs to 
the same Academy; she believes she, Mrs. Evans, 
would tell the truth; she never knew her to be guilty 
of a falsehood. Question by Mr. Wentz. Do you 
know Mary Albertson? Ans, 1 know her by sight." 

I consider these witnesses to have fairly establish- 
ed her character, and from thence she becomes not 
only a creditable but a respectable witness. And 
what does she say? She states that " Mr. Wentz 
took us up (meaning herself and Mary Albertson) 
into the second story, put his hands upon her breast 
and asked what she had there, and why she kept her 
bosom so loose; he then put his fingers into her bo- 
som and asked why she kept it so loose; she an- 
swered that it was for the purpose of keeping her 
cotton and thimble in; he told her that she ought to 
put a drawing string in it and draw it up. He then 
took us up into the third story or garret, and told us 
to see how he had made them rooms; he had made 
them so that the boys and girls could get up in the 
night and go together, unbeknown to any body, that 
nobody would know it; she asked him what the girls 
wanted to do with the boys, she told him that the 
girls were not so fond of the boys; he said good 
God, I would not trust them; she hit him a slap and 
asked him if he was not ashamed of himself." 

The testimony of Elizabeth Hagner, is full to the 
point — and therefore her character was also im- 
peached, and the testimony of a witness on the part 
of Mr. Wentz was taken — viz. Hannah Westcott, 
and what is the amount of her evidence? — She said 
" The part which I can testify is to the character of 
Mrs. Hagner. I have been intimate with her about 
six years, of which time we lived together about three 
years; her character is that of a talking woman, but 
do not know that she is to be accused of falsehood. 
From a conversation with the sister-in-law of Mrs. 
Hagner, she believed her to be a mischief-making 



154 



woman; and she had reason to believe that Mrs. 
Hagner had endeavoured to make mischief between 
Mr. Wentz and his Wife." She relates also some- 
thing regarding a sermon of the Rev. Mr. Patterson. 
" She knew that Mr. Erringer having informed, Mrs. 
Hagner of some words used by Mr. Patterson with 
which he was displeased, Mrs. Hagner called on 
Mr. Patterson to know what were the words which 
he had used, unwilling as she, Mrs. Hagner said, 
that he should labour under the imputation of using 
improper expressions. Mr. Patterson informed 
Mrs. Hagner what he had said, and expressed thank- 
fulness that she had called to give him the informa- 
tion. After this Mrs. Hagner informed me what 
had passed; this I considered an improper inter- 
ference, and I told Mrs. Hagner that I should not 
have done so." 

Here is a small difference of opinion expressed by 
Mr. Patterson and the witness. Mr. Patterson ex- 
presses his thankfulness that Mrs. Hagner had call- 
ed to give him the information, whilst on the other 
hand, Mrs. Westcott thinks it was an improper in- 
terference, and she would not have done so. She 
then* states that " she lived in the same house with 
Mrs. Hagner at the time of the unfortunate affair of 
Mary Albertson; that she supposed Mary would not 
have been more diffident in informing her of her sit- 
uation than Mrs. Hagner, as they were in the habit 
of going to church together, both to Dr. Janeway's 
and Mr. Patterson's. She states further on the ques- 
tion, Do you believe that Mrs. Hagner, on her oath, 
would be guilty of telling a falsehood? Ans, I would 
be afraid to trust her in any thing regarding me. To 
the question of Mr. Wentz, Do you believe Mrs* 
Hagner to be a pious, good woman? she answered, I 
must leave that to the Almighty; she professes to he 
a good woman. 

. To remove the weight and destroy the effect of 
the matter testified by this person, members of a sis- 
ter church were respectfully requested to attend the 



155 



session — they are three men against one woman — who 
entertained different sentiments, in respect to Mrs. 
Hagner, and they severally testified before the ses- 
sion. If we are to determine upon the rule of evi- 
dence; if the majority in number is to decide the 
weight of the testimony, Mrs. Hagner's character is 
free from blemish. The witnesses are all professing 
christians and ruling elders in a sister church. 

Mr. Erringer " had known her near two years, and 
esteems her a pious woman; thinks her word and af- 
firmation may be safely relied upon; she bears an ex- 
cellent character as a professor of religion in our 
church; she stood very high when she was admitted, 
and continues to stand high in our estimation; she is 
not considered as a busy body, or capable of raising 
an evil report of her neighbours; on the contrary, she 
is considered as rather retired. She might be more 
useful if she was more forward. She is not a great 
talker." — This testimony is supported by 

Mr. Rarer , who " had known her as a member of 
the church for two years, but her general character 
for ten or twelve years; he esteems her a pious wo- 
man. From what he knows himself, and what he 
has heard from others, her word may be depended 
upon; he never heard any thing to the contrary. He 
does not believe her to be a busy body. He has al- 
ways heard her well spoken of; never heard of her 
quarrelling with any one." 

Mr. George Mentz u has known Elizabeth Hagner 
about eighteen months, and considers her strictly pi- 
ous. He considers her word and affirmation may be 
safely relied upon, and should be glad to see all the 
members of the church, and other persons, to be equal 
to her in zeal and piety. He never found her con- 
tentious or speaking ill of any one." 

These witnesses establish Mrs. Hagner's charac- 
ter for veracity; they do more — they establish her 
character for piety also. 

I will now proceed to consider the testimony of 
the witnesses who were called, on the part of the 



156 



church, to establish the facts contained in the report, 
and which authorised the session to pass the judg- 
ment which they gave in this case. 

yohn Gilder testified that 4t Mary Albertson be- 
longed to the same religious society that he did, and 
to the same class of which he was the leader. The 
first he knew of her situation was last spring, When 
she called upon him and desired to withdraw from 
the society; that she called again in about two weeks 
and expressed the same desire, adding that she had 
done something which was very bad. After the 
witness left the house, Mary Albertson informed his 
wife what was her situation; 1 ' and this is corrobora- 
ted by the testimony of Mrs. Gilder, his wife, who 
says that " Mary Albertson called in April last, and 
requested that Mr. Giider should take her name oflF 
the class list. She called a second time and told 
that she was in a family way, and said if I would 
forgive her, she believed the Lord had forgiven her. 
She appeared to be in a great deal of trouble. When 
I asked her who the father of it was, and if she could 
not get married to him? she said it was a person in 
the house, but it was out of the question to get mar- 
ried, that could not be, it was impossible. I asked 
who would take care of her? she said the father 
would provide for and take care of her. In both 
conversations she wept bitterly." 

What, Moderator, is this not the truth? what rea- 
son had she at that time to conceal the truth? the 
father would provide for her; he was a person in the 
house, but it was out of the question to get married; 
that could not be, it was impossible. Isaac Burdock 
did not live at any time with her in the house, and 
he, she said, on her oath, was a single man; if so, 
why, if he was the father of her child, was it impos- 
sible he should marry her? No, no, Isaac Burdock 
was not in her mind at that time, and no one ever 
saw him — he is a person of her own creation. 

See further, when Mr. Guilder some months after 
went to see her in the room wherein she was confi- 



157 



ned with the child, she expressed her satisfaction 
that he thought so well of her as to come to see her; 
he expressed a regret that she had brought herself 
into that situation, having had a good opinion of her 
piety; at this she wept. He asked her whether Mr. 
Wentz was not the father of the child, to which she 
requested this question might not be put to her — 
this was in a flood of tears. He asked her who sup- 
ported her there; to which she also requested that 
she might not be asked that question; he then spoke 
to her on the subject of the oath that she had taken, 
and considering what she had said to other persons; 
She answered, she had done more than one bad 
thing; when he replied, that he thought the last was 
worse than the first, having reference to the oath, and 
which she had (as he believes) also." 

And why should he not believe? He had know- 
ledge of what passed last April between Mary Al- 
bertson and his wife, respecting who was the father 
of the child — a person living in the house with her 
to whom it was out of the question to get married— 
their could be no doubt but she meant by " the more 
than one bad thing" the oath she had taken to clear 
Mr. Wentz from the charge. 

Mr. Gilder then asked her if she had told Grace 
Bowker that Mr. Wentz had been following her for 
some time, and if she had not advised her to leave 
Mr. Wentz's house. She answered no, but that she 
had told Mary Snyder so. 

We must give credit to what this woman said at 
this time and what she had then told the other re- 
spectable, impartial and disinterested witness — not to 
what she declares after having had time to prepare 
herself for a denial of almost every thing which had 
actually passed. 

Then there is Eliza Albertson, her half sister; what 
temptation can she have to tell, under the solemnity 
of an oath, a falsehood in regard to her sister, 
J L She went to see her at Mr. Morris's, where she 
had gone to service from Mr. Wentz's, suspecting 

o 



158 



that something was the matter and requested she 
would tell her; when she did inform what she sup- 
posed was her situation, that she did not tell her posi- 
tively that Mr. Wentz was the father, but said that 
she had told Mr. Wentz so to his face, that he was 
the father of the child of which she was pregnant, and 
nobody else. She called several times to see her at 
Mr. Morris's, when Mary observed that she should 
say nothing about it, both for her own and her sis- 
ter's sake, that Mr. Wentz would provide for the 
child. u She believed Mary to be sincere when she 
said Mr. Wentz was the father, and she still believes 
so." To this question put by the session, mark her 
answer: — " Do you believe or give credit to the 
oath of Mary Albertson which clears Mr. Went2? I 
do not believe it or give credit to it. What reason 
have you to disbelieve or discredit this? She was satis- 
fied in her own mind from what she had heard from her 
sister Mary Albertson, that the oath cannot be true and 
nothing would persuade her to believe it to be true." 
In a conversation after the birth of the child, when 
Mary Albertson called on the witness, she said she 
had tfc cleared Mr. Wentz; when the witness replied 
you have cleared him with a lie. The answer was 
that the communication made relative to Mr. Wentz 
was to her as a friend, and further stated that Mary 
Albertson did not deny that she had taken a false 
oath, neither did she confess it." 

Is it incredible that one crime should be attempted 
to be concealed by the commission of another, and 
even a greater. Let it be remembered that David, 
the man after God's own heart, was induced to com- 
mit a murder to conceal his adultery with Uriah's 
wife, and that is sufficient to satisfy us that it is pos- 
sible that this unfortunate woman may have been by 
some means induced to make a false affirmation be- 
fore the session, whilst she spoke the truth to those 
to whom she confided her unhappy situation. 

Concluded with prayer. The session adjourned till to-moT- 
?ow, at 9 o'clock-. 



159 



Saturday morning, April 22<:/, 1820. 
The Rev. Doctor Janeway, in continuation. 

1 feel thankful for the adjournment; it relieved me 
from the exhaustion of strength and spirits, incidental 
to such a tedious discussion as occupied the attention 
of the Presbytery yesterday, during both sittings, the 
morning and afternoon. There remains some points 
yet requiring a further discussion; I do not intend 
to make a long speech; it is not necessary to con- 
sume so much time in reply to the advocate of the 
appellant, as he took up in support of the appeal.* 

He asked why the session had not struck out of 
the testimony what was redundant. The session 
wished to give every opportunity to the party of 
being fully heard, and brother Bradford ought not to 
have complained, as it has given him an opportunity 
of making a long speech, in which I conceive there 
has been considerable redundancy, which might 
have been retrenched, much to his owfi ease and re- 
lief of the Presbytery. The session were inclined 
to treat truth with all that indulgence which was ne- 
cessary to the case and the nature of the evidence. 
I wish to be allowed to explain what I was saying, 
when I was called to order; after that I think it will 
be allowed that I was in order, and the call was 
rather disorderly. I meant that it was the practice 
in our courts, and among many of our lawyers, to 
extend the period of a trial to an extent proportioned 
to the money at issue, or paid in fee by the parties; 
if brother Bradford is one of the corps, and any thing 
I said has wounded his feelings, I ask his pardon. 
But while I say this, I cannot consent to yield my 
argument. Mr. Bradford is indeed a member of this 
court as an elder; thereby becoming the advocate of 
the appellant he has vocated his seat; he was, as he 
has admitted, applied to three months ago, and has 
studied the case and came prepared for the trial, and 

* Mr. Bradford spoke three hours and a half; Dr. Janeway 
four and a half ! 



i60 



he is therefore the legal advocate of Mr. Wentz, and. 
it is important to view him in this light. 

Let it be understood that the session do not stand 
in the light of a party, they are prosecutors not at- 
cusers; they are also judges, but they are never to be 
supposed to be actuated by the spirit of accusers. 
In the case now under the consideration, when it 
was before the session they were in favour of the 
accused; they would have rejoiced had he proved 
innocent — and even now, I do no more than keep an 
attentive eye upon my brother Bradford, who has 
declared himself, and as we all know he is, a legal 
solicitor. It is then important you should consider 
him in that light and watch all his arguments. I 
know that legal practitioners are ever on the alert in. 
favour of their clients. It may be thought because 
I was moderator of the session and speak in reply, 
that I am the advocate of the session; not so— the 
session being not a party, need make no defence upon 
the appeal, the Presbytery will only re -judge their 
judgment upon their own understanding of the re- 
ported testimony, and all the other circumstances 
which were before the session. Here is the differ- 
ence; I only represent the impressions made upon 
the session, upon which their judgment was founded; 
and the appellant's advocate, according to the legal 
practice, attempts to destroy or to maim all the tes- 
timony which constitutes the foundation upon which 
our superstructure is established. I am an advocate 
from religious duty and a sense of right. He acts 
as attorney at law, and therefore ought in this judi- 
catory to be carefully and cautiously observed. I 
will now ask whether I was out of order yesterday, , 
or whether the call was not rather out of order. 

Much has been said by the advocate about what is 
probable or improbable, a thing may appear highly 
improbable and yet be true; when it was reported 
that stones had fallen from the atmosphere in Con- 
necticut. It was observed by a philosopher of this 
country that it was more probable that two men" 



161 



should join together to tell a lie, than that such an 
event should occur — but no man of reading will 
doubt the fact at this day. It is facts we want, 
our inquiry is, have we credible witnesses; what do 
they testify? 

Permit me, Mr. Moderator, to make a few obser- 
vations on the nature of evidence. The advocate of 
the appellant has spoken much about positive testi- 
mony, as if there was no other kind that was admis* 
sible. Does he not know that circumstantial evidence 
is abundantly sufficient on which to found judgments, 
involving interests of the highest moment. Does he 
not know that it is a maxim, that circumstantial evi- 
dence will not lie; why has he kept this out of view? 
Does not this show the part he is acting in this 
cause. Shall I be reminded of the late occur- 
rence in Vermont. It is true that two individuals 
were condemned on circumstantial evidence for the 
murder of a man who was afterwards found to be 
alive; but this only shows the imperfection of hu- 
man evidence; how many have been condemned and 
executed on positive testimony, who were afterwards 
discovered to be innocent. We were asked if we 
should like to be tried by circumstantial evidence. 
I say that circumstantial evidence is as decisive in 
some instances, as positive in any instance; and much 
more so than in many. 

Much has been said of legal evidence; allow me to 
make a distinction on this subject, between testimony 
legally received and legally sufficient. The testi- 
mony of Massey Evans was legally received, but 
was not of itself legally sufficient to establish the guilt 
of the accused. It is my business to show that as 
the session have on record testimony legally received, 
so they have testimony legally sufficient to convict 
the unfortunate man. If the l-estimony of Mrs. 
Hagner be deemed insufficient of itself to substan- 
tiate the charge according to our rule; can it be de- 
nied to be sufficient when corroborated by others? 
We have three or four more witnesses proving the 
o 2 



162 



acts and declarations of the mother, Mary Albertson. 
Much is said of her not being under oath at the time 
oi these declarations; but the malice of a party is 
proved by acts and declarations, made previously 
and privately before the commission of a crime. In 
a case of murder of the first degree, it can only be 
proved by the previous acts and declarations, which 
I presume are seldom made under a legal oath be- 
fore a magistrate; though the court will not be bound 
by the opinion of a witness on such evidence, yet 
the court will consider if the person spoke the truth, 
when he made such declarations, so the malice may 
be proved from the words, and the act from the 
malice; for the court will infer from the act the pre- 
pense malice, expressed by words uttered when the 
party was not under oath. So the session infered 
from the several declarations and actions of Mary 
Albertson, that she spoke the truth to those witness- 
es, who have given their testimony of what she said 
to them at various times. It is asked, why was not 
her oath obtained at the hour of labour. If it had 
been asked and she had declared the father to be 
Isaac Burdock, brother Bradford would have had a 
proud triumph for his client. But may not we ask, 
why in that hour of trial, Mr. Wentz did not then 
test the truth of the report in circulation? Why 
wait till four days after, when the woman was out of 
danger. Was she not secure when Mr. Gilder 
waited upon her, when she did not deny that Mr. 
Wentz was the father; and when it was told her that 
he suspected the oath which she had taken but two 
days before, was a greater sin than the first, or words 
to that effect, she was silent. When she saw her 
sister and told her she had cleared Mr. Wentz, the 
witness replied she had cleared him with a lie; and 
then she answered that the communication formerly 
made to her, relative to Mr* Wentz, was made to 
her as a friend; and further, she stated that Mary Al- 
bertson did not deny she had taken a false oath, 
Wfjai temptation had her sister to speak falsely o.f 



163 



her? what temptation had Mary Snyder to calum- 
niate her, if she falsely related what Mary Albertson 
had told her, that u two years ago Mr. Wentz had 
made very free with her; that at Mr. Morris's she 
asked her how she could give up to Mr. Wentz, 
knowing that he had a family? She said that she 
did not know how it was, but that like Sampson, she 
was shorn of her strength. I then asked her how 
Mrs. Wentz bore it? She said like a christian; had 
she not have been a christian she could not have 
supported it. I advised her to go into the country; 
she said no, if she went, Mr. Wentz would do nothing 
for her, as it would be making it known among his 
people. I spoke about a maintainance, and that it 
would be necessary to swear the child? She said no: 
she would rather suffer than do so, on account of his 
family. Then she said that both Mr. and Mrs. 
Wentz told her that neither she nor the child should 
ever suffer, provided she would keep it a secret." 

What motive could Mary Snyder have, whom Mary 
Albertson acknowledges that she reposed confidence 
in, to swear to such conversation, unless it was strict- 
ly true, or to what cause could it be attributed, that 
Grace Bowker tells a conversation that took place be- 
tween her and Mary Albertson, who informed her 
of her being in a family way, and Mrs. Bowker 
mentioned Mr. Wentz as being the man that she 
suspected; Mary did not deny it, but said, do not 
ask me? The reason was, that she had told a friend 
of her's, who had told me that Mr. Wentz had pur- 
sued her improperly. I told her that I supposed I 
knew, and she replied that she supposed I did. From 
that time whenever I saw her, she always spoke as 
if she had told me that he was the person; she also 
told me that she had acknowledged before Mrs. 
Wentz and Mrs. Hagner her situation, and that Mr. 
Wentz was the father of the child of which she was 
pregnant. She told me that Mr. Wentz had said 
that he would compl) with any terms that Mrs* 
Wentz and Mrs. Hagner would propose." 



164 



There is no rationally accounting for the testimony 
these women give on oath, in respect to their conveiv 
saiions with Mary Albertson, unless they are ground- 
ed on truth. It cannot be ascribed to a malicious 
combination against Samuel Wentz, toward whom 
they had no enmity. But it is said that these are 
declarations made" by Mary Albertson when he was 
not present, and therefore cannot affect him upon the 
charge before the session. But Mr. Wentz was pre- 
sent at the trial. He might cross examine every one 
of them, and in fact he did put several questions, 
every one of which was promptly answered, except 
one which the session directed not to be put as it 
went to inculpate the witness. Look at the record, 
and see the long and frequent sittings, the volume of 
testimony taken, the questions put by the session 
and those put by the defendant, and judge from 
those circumstances, whether there was not patience, 
perseverance, and impartiality in search of truth; 
we wished to find him innocent; but in the end, in 
the fear of God, we dared not say so. 

The rule to which reference has been made, and 
which must govern the decisions of our ecclesias- 
tical courts, is expressed in these words: No crime 
shall be considered as established by a single witness. 
It has been supposed by some, that this rule requires 
two witnesses to the same act: this is a mistake, a 
crime may be simple or complex, if it be of a com- 
plex nature, several witnesses to different acts of the 
same crime will be sufficient to establish it. Sup- 
pose a man charged with the sin of drunkenness, 
and A, B, C, D and E bear testimony that they saw 
him intoxicated at different times, though no two of 
them saw him in that condition at the same time, 
the testimony of so many witnesses to different acts 
of the same crime, is amply sufficient to establish 
the charge, and is stronger than would be the testi- 
mony of two witnesses, who might have seen him in- 
toxicated at the same time. On this interpretation 
Qf the rule, Mr. Hind man was deposed from the 



165 

gospel ministry by the presbytery of New Castle. 
He was accused of uncleanness, and although no 
two witnesses testified to the same act, yet as there 
were several persons who testified to different acts 
of the same crime, it was justly concluded that the 
charge was established. When the case was carried 
up to the general assembly by appeal, 'they sanction- 

| ed this interpretation of the rule by affirming the de- 

E vision of the presbytery. 

[Here Dr. Janeway complained to the moderator that some 
of the members were leaving- the court, and the moderator re- 
quired the members not to withdraw without leave.] 

Dr. Janeway resumed — I will pass over those 
witnesses with this remark, that if we were trying 

t Mary Albertson, all that she had said or sworn to, 
might be proved to be false, akhough what they tes- 
tified concerning her may be true. The testimony 
against herself might be taken as good. Now take 
up the testimony of Mrs. Wentz. When it was 
read in the report, you recollect, Moderator, I de- 
clared it was inadmissible, and I now contend 
that it is not legal evidence; though taken under an 
oath, you must pay no regard to it. It is not admis- 
sible in the civil courts: it is your duty not to con- 
sider it at all. The session are convinced that they 
did wrong in giving Mr. Wentz liberty to introduce 
it; yet as they were capable of judging what degree 
of weight to give to it, they supposed that no impro- 
per impression would be made on their judgments. 
Brother Bradford said it was not legal testimony — • 

! he would cast it out and pay no regard to it, though 
he examined it as he found it in the report. So I 
will take the same broad ground! I will cast it out 
and pay no regard to it — yet I will examine his re- 
marks upon it. This testimony then, is the testimo- 
ny of a married woman, in favour of her husband, 
and if she has a bias, it must incline toward him. I 
think that there are some deviations from the right 
line, which if she had been a single woman she would 
not have made; but considering how deeply she is in- 
terested, and the future happiness of her children and 



166 



family is involved, I can make an allowance for a frail- 
ty induced by such overpowering circumstances. Wo- 
men will submit to endure from their husbands much 
and very unbecoming and improper conduct for the 
sake of their children. I knew a woman once, and be- 
lieve her spirit is now in heaven, who bore with the 
infidelity of her husband and cohabited with him as 
if she had no cause of complaint, in order to pre- 
serve the happiness of her children. There are 
others now living, who reside with their husbands, 
notwithstanding the frequent abuse and violence they 
are subject to, merely to preserve their children, the 
fruit of happier days, while they have a right to ask 
their deliverance at the hand of the law. 

The case of the Rev. Mr. Frey of New York, is 
not unknown to you, for sometimes the husband is 
governed by similar feelings as the mother. His 
wife turned out to be a bad woman— she parted from 
him and her children — he went in pursuit of her and 
brought her back, and was ever after content to live 
with her for the sake of the children. Shall we suf- 
fer m act, inspired by the love of her children on 
the one hand, and the promise of reformation on the 
part of her husband on the other, to be altogether 
condemned as highly criminal? It is not necessary 
that we should admit Mrs. Wentz's testimony: you 
cannot look into the bosom of a woman circumstan- 
ced as she has been. 

I therefore claim my ground. I will cast off this 
testimony and pay no regard to it; then Mrs. Eliza- 
beth Hagner's testimony, at least as it respects the 
conversation with Mrs. Wentz, stands altogether 
unincumbered. The rule of the church to guide, 
our process, is that no witness shall be present 
during the examination of another witness; but Mr. 
Wentz was present daring the examination, and it 
is evident from Mrs. Wentz's own testimony, that 
she was informed (probably by her husband) of what 
had passed on the examination. I think I may say 
she heard it from Mr. Wentz, without danger of 



167 



contradiction; it' so, / then say it is a made-up story. 
Kow if we examine Mrs. Kochler's testimony, and 
compare it oh the same points with Mrs. Wentz's, 
there is no point on which they are in collision; for 
Mrs. Kochler says the young woman paid her own 
expenses; and Mrs. Wentz says, " I asked her how 
she was provided for? Her reply was, I have pro- 
vided for myself. Says I, how or in what way? 
Mary replied, Out of my own earnings; she observed, 
I had some money when 1 left your house, and 
which I knew to be the case, and with what I have 
been able to save up since, she said she thought she 
would be able to bear her expenses." But this ar- 
rangement might have been previous, between the 
husband and wife, and the girl. Examining next 
Mrs. Wentz with Mrs. Elizabeth Hagner, where 
they contradict each other; we shall find good ground 
for supposing that Mr. Wentz communicated to his 
wife what Mrs. Hagner's testimony was, and that 
her testimony given in answers to his questions, was 
previously concerted. And here let me ask, why 
was not Doctor Perkins sent for. Mr. Wentz had 
employed him, and his testimony might be very ma- 
terial as to who paid the expenses; he was not how- 
ever called before the session by Mr. Wentz. But 
here is a strong circumstance that the rule in respect 
to process was destroyed; for she goes on to say, 
without waiting for her husband's leading question. 
" I understand that Mrs. Hagner has stated before 
the session — (I understand — who gave her that infor- 
mation?) that a conversation took place in the garret 
between her, Mr. Wentz, and my self." How could 
she have ever understood what Mrs. Hagner had 
stated before the session, if Mr. Wentz who was 
present, had not informed her. How but in this 
way, was she prepared to swear we never had such 
a conversation together, as it regards Mr. Wentz," 
here you observe she shields her husband from all 
accountability; and then goes on to declare what the 
conversation was, as between herself and Mrs. Hag> 



168 



ner. " When she came into the garret I was fold- 
ng my clothes, she sat down on the bed side; I 
finished folding my clothes, we conversed upon dif- 
ferent subjects, principally relating to different 
churches; after finishing my work I sat down along 
side of her. The subject then turned upon Folly. 
Mrs. Hagner observed that she had been to see her 
that morning. I asked how Polly was? She said 
she appeared to be very low spirited. I asked from 
what cause; had any thing new taken place? She said 
that Polly told her that the man had gone off. Said 
I has she got nothing from him? JVTrs. Hagner then 
replied she had not got a cent. Polly says she is 
doubiful if she has got enough to support herself 
through her confinement. She was apprehensive she 
would have to go to the Bettering house. The an- 
swer I then made was, if she has been such a fool as 
to let him go off without getting any thing, she must 
abide the consequences. I likewise said she had 
better do th^it than suffer. At this time Mr. Wentz 
was at the head of the second btairs. Mrs. Hagner 
said to me, you are called. I then got up and went 
down; when Mr. Wentz said Mrs. Kempton's house- 
keeper wants to see you. Mrs. Hagner then fol- 
lowed me down; Mr. Wentz having come no further 
up the stairs; and this is the last conversation which 
ever passed between Mrs. Hagner and I, respecting 
Mary's situation." 

This description is evidently given to counteract 
the impression made on the session by Mrs. Hag- 
ner's testimony, but be it whatever it may, it is not 
testimony to go before this house; it is illegal, and 
you must not give it any weight in making up your 
decision. 

An attempt was made by introducing the testi- 
mony of Mrs. Hannah Westcott to contradict Mrs. 
Hagner's testimony; but it only goes to show that in 
her opinion she was a busy body, and the fact to 
prove this, is her waiting on the Rev. Mr. Patter- 
son to give him some information and ask for some* 



169 



for which Mrs. Hagner receives the thanks of Mr. 
Patterson; and three respectable elders of her 
church, have sworn to her good moral character. 
So the credibility of Mrs. Hagner is triumphantly 
established; and with all the legal knowledge of 
brother Bradford he would find it difficult in any case 
to find a better evidence. 

The counsel has sometimes complained that the 
testimony is too limited, and sometimes that it is to 
particular; and it has happened that his complaints 
against its length has been directed against that 
which was short, and his complaints of its being too 
limited against it when extended. I am reminded 
of a story which I heard in my boyish days con- 
cerning a pair of shoes; they were too long and too 
short, too wide and too narrow. In speaking of the 
difficulty of stating what occurs in a conversation in 
evidence, he referred to what has taken place in re* 
gard to the Rev. Mr. Parker. Now it is true no 
member of Presbytery could detail with accuracy 
all that has been said, but could not any member 
who has attended to the business state accurately the 
leading facts; could he not tell that the Rev. Mr. 
Parker laid a complaint against the Seventh Pres- 
byterian church, that the Presbytery determined to 
hear it, and that a citation was directed to be given 
to the congregation. So, although Mrs. Hagner 
could not relate every thing that was said in a long 
conversation, yet she could, and has given the sub- 
stance of it. It is said Mrs. Hagner does not give 
in testimony all she knew. She was competent to 
tell all she did; she was sworn to tell the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth. If Mr. 
Wentz wanted her to state more than she did, why 
did not Mr. Wentz ask her? She was bound to tell 
all she knew. He had asked some questions, and 
received pertinent answers. Did he not display the 
lawyer under the counsel of a legal advocate, who 
did not come here to make a speech which was 
never to be looked upon hereafter, who had spent 



170 



three months in preparing for the case. But in my 
speech I am performing a duty, and must now call 
your attention to Mrs. Hagner, whom you will find to 
be a sensible, shrewd and discriminating witness, 
and a very important one indeed. I will examine 
her whole testimony and comment upon it as I pro- 
gress. 

Elizabeth Hagner, a witness on behalf of the 
church, was sworn — and testified, u That some time 
in January last, Mrs. Wentz came to her house," 
(this is denied by Mrs. Wentz, who says Mrs. Hag- 
ner came to her house) " and stated the uneasiness 
she had on her mind relative to Mary Albertson." 
(Mrs. Wentz says that Mrs. Hagner said to her 
what ails Polly?) Again, u She did not speak very 
plain; I waived the subject; she then dropt it herself. 
Next morning Mrs. Wentz came in and told me 
more plainly her uneasiness; she told me that things 
had not been right in the house for some time; and 
told me that Mr. Wentz and Mary Albertson had 
been rather too intimate, and wondered how she 
could be blind to it so long. I told her then I had 
felt uneasy myself at seeing them going out together. 
She asked me if I would speak to Mr. Wentz about 
it, I told her if she thought it would be of any ser- 
vice, I would." 

Much has been said of Mrs. Hagner being a stran- 
ger. She was not a stranger, but a confidant of Mrs. 
Wentz, to whom she could unbosom her mind in 
this delicate case, and to whom she could commit 
such a commission as an interference with the con- 
duct of her husband. 

Mrs. Hagner proceeds, c ^ I do not recollect if it 
was that same morning or the next, it was one of 
the two, he came to the door where I met him; I 
asked him to walk in; he said -yes; and observed he 
knew what I wanted." (Mind, Moderator, this is 
Mr. Wentz himself.) " I had some conversation 
with him on the subject. I asked him if he did not 
think it was imprudent to go out with Mary Albert* 



171 



son so much alone? I asked him if they were not 
putting themselves in the way of temptation? I sta- 
ted to him that it was not a proper thing for him to 
stay up at night and wait for her. The conversation 
with Mr. Wentz continued about an hour; during 
which time I did not accuse Mr. Wentz of any thing 
criminal, but treated with him on the score of im- 
prudence." Mr. Wentz was present during this 
examination, but he put no question. Wliat the 
witness here testifies is legal evidence. The next 
paragraph fs what Mary Albertson said, and this is 
point blank proof. 

" Mary Albertson called on the evening of the 
same day, she appeared to be in great distress. When 
she came in, she told me she had something to com- 
municate. I asked her if she had well considered the 
matter before she came? She said she had, and that 
she had been tempted very often before to tell me 
the circumstance. She insisted upon telling me, and 
then proceeded to say that Mr. Wentz had professed 
an attachment." 

Mary Albertson is to be believed when not under 
oath up to that time her veracity was undisputed. 
But to proceed — 

" I asked her how she could bear to stay in the 
house? She said she hardly knew how to account 
for that. She then went on to state how Mr. Wentz 
came to discover any imprudent intimacy. She said 
oh the Monday coming previous to the evening she 
was conversing with me, that Mr. Wentz and his 
brother were out. They came home. Mr. Wentz 
was much displeased that Mrs. Wentz and Mary 
were up so late, and spoke some words that gave 
Mary pain; she retired into the kitchen and wept; 
Mrs. Wentz retired to bed; Mr. Wentz and his 
brother went next door; she, Mary Albertson, stayed 
up until they returned. Mr. Wentz came to the 
kitchen to her and conversed with her; he pursued 
the customary plan of professing his attachment to 
her. She said he kissed her upon her neck and left 



172 



a bluish mark. The next morning Mrs. Wentz 
discovered the mark, and asked what was on her 
neck? Her conscience condemned her, and she con- 
fessed to Mrs. Wentz how it came there. Mrs* 
Wentz and her spent a very unhappy day in consev 
quence of it." 

Mrs. Wentz, in answer to her husband's question, 
Did you ever discover a blue mark on Polly's neck? 
Said never. And then proceeds to state all the cir- 
cumstances which took place the evening alluded to 
by Mary Alberis-on, by which it would appear that 
Mr. Wentz had not an opportunity of being in the 
kitchen, and, of course, no such kiss was given; but 
in this case the story seems to be made up to meet 
the charge as she had been informed that Mrs. Hag- 
ner had stated it in her testimony. 

" Mrs. Wentz called upon me more or less every 
day as a person in great distress." Is this like 
making a stranger of Mrs. Hagner? No; it shows 
a friendly confidence to subsist between them. 

" Mary complained sometime after, perhaps a 
week, that she was not well and wished a physician. 
Dr. Perkins was sent for. The Doctor inquired of 
Mrs. Wentz if she thought the girl was clear from 
being in a family way. Mrs. Wentz told him she 
thought she was; accordingly he prescribed for her. 
She continued taking medicine for about a week. 
Mrs. Wentz came in every day expressing her un- 
easiness about Mary's situation. I felt uneasy in 
my own mind, believing her to be in a family way. 
I told Mrs. Wentz that I thought she ought not to 
take medicine; I was fearful from the way it opera- 
ted on her that it would destroy her existence. On 
telling Mrs. Wentz my opinion, she burst into tears, 
and she mid she knew where that would go" 

There can be no doubt on the meaning of this action 
and the accompanying words: they speak volumes of 
what was passing in her mind — and could not escape 
Mrs. Hagner's shrewd, penetrating and intelligent 
powers. 



173 



u Some farther conversation took place on the 
subject. On going home, she accused Mary of that 
being her situation. Mary did not deny it; only said 
that she did not know whether it was so or not; but 
did not say it was not. As near as I can recollect, 
Mrs. Wentz mentioned to Mr. Wentz her suspicions 
of Mary. A few days after Mrs. Wentz called 
again and told me that Mr. Wentz thought it was 
likely to be the case." 

What Mrs. Wentz's states of what Mr. Wentz 
says is legal testimony. And why should Mr. 
Wentz think it was likely to be the case, unless he 
knew it might be the result of his own illicit inter- 
course with the woman? Mr. Wentz's confession 
any where is evidence-— positive evidence. 

" Mr. Wentz then desired Mrs. Wentz to con- 
sult with me how it should be kept a secret." Mark, 
Moderator, Mr. Wentz recommends his wife to 
consult Mrs. Kagner how to keep it a secret. What 
interest had he in this business if he was an innocent 
man? 

Again " I told her I was fearful it could not be 
done. She said it was desirable on account of her- 
self and her children." Why desirable, if Mr. 
Wentz was not the reputed father? I see no other 
reason for this desirable secrecy. 

u I told her that I thought it was necessary for 
the girl to be removed out of the house. She said 
she would have that done as soon as possible. (Here 
it was stated by the witness that much more took 
place with Mrs. Wentz, which she considered not 
necessary to relate.") Why did not Mr. Wentz ask 
such questions as would have brought what more 
conversation took place between his wife and the 
witness? " I proposed her, Mary's, going to the coun- 
try, considering it the best way of concealing it. 
Mrs. Wentz said she did not know what part of the 
country to send her to; she said it would not do to 
send her to her native place, on account of Mr, 
Wentz's people living there. It was at length agreed 

P 2 



174 



that she should remain in the city. I was to look out 
for a private place for her to go to. Mary persisted 
in her determination to go, and confess it to her 
meeting. I told her then that it would be a matter 
impossible to keep it concealed. At this time she 
lived at Mr. Morris's, in Eighth-street; she was to 
remain there till the 1st of August or September, and 
then there was to be provided for her a place to go 
to. During this time of being at Mr. Morris's, she 
was not to go to Mr. Wentz's house at Mr. and 
Mrs. Wentz's request. I went backward and forward 
from time to time, making known the terms on 
which she might be boarded. She, Mary, demanded 
two months boarding previous to her confinement. 
I told Mr. and Mrs. Wentz. Mrs. Wentz was not 
willing to pay for more than one month. I told 
Mary I thought this was sufficient. She persisted in 
demanding the two months. I told her it would not 
be granted. She said that if they, Mr. and Mrs. 
Wentz, did not do as she wanted, that she would go 
to the Bettering house, and give herself up to the 
overseers of the poor. (Here a part of the conver- 
sation was not thought necessary to relate, it going 
to show the high terms which Mary was disposed 
to exact beyond what the witness considered was 
right.) I went down to Mr. and Mrs. Wentz, and 
told them what Mary said she wouid do." 

Now, Moderator, mark what follows — " Mr. and 
Mrs. Wentz and myself went up into the garret." 
Why into the garret? Mrs. Wentz is so hard of hear- 
ing that every person who addresses her is required 
to speak very loud; and if the conversation had been 
held in the parlour, it might have been heard through 
the whole ground floor of the house. Well, they 
i{ went up into the garret and conversed freely about 
the terms he was willing to give." Mrs. Wentz 
swore that Mr. Wentz was not there. Here you find 
not only that he was there, but submits himself to 
the consideration of the witness and his wife. u Mr. 
Wentz said whatever Mrs, Wentz arid I thought 



17* 



was right he was willing to do. I thought one month's 
board previous to her confinement was sufficient. It 
was then agreed that I should go out towards Schuyl- 
kill, where Mr. Wentz has a house, in order to get 
her accommodated with boarding during her con- 
finement. (Much conversation now took place not 
necessary to relate.)" Mark, Moderator, these last 
words are the words of the witness, not those of the 
session. She had related all that part of the conver- 
sation which she thought necessary; if any thing 
more was required she was bound by her solemn 
oath to give it, and Mr. Wentz was present, who 
had a full right to demand it. But let us proceed— 
u Previous to my going to Mary Albertson, Mr. 
Wentz requested me to state" — What? " that if she 
persisted in making demands that were thought un- 
reasonable, that she might go to the bettering house, 
and that he would pay his fine, which was 300 dol- 
lars, and then he would have done with her." This 
he might have said in a pet, and afterwards have 
changed his mind; so I presume thought Mrs. Hag- 
ner, for she went to see Mary; and adds, " I told 
Mary this: (here again much conversation which 
need not be mentioned) Mary Albertson then agreed 
that she would save her wages, and pay for one 
month herself, and then agreed to the terms that 
Mrs. Wentz and myself had concluded to do for her. 
I then returned home, and thought that the whole 
plan was settled." Is not this story told straight, 
and does it not demonstrate that Mrs. Hagner is a 
prudent and discreet woman? Here is no mark of 
her being a busy-body, though it appears she trans- 
acted the business between the parties, and by a 
compromise I presume to their mutual satisfaction. 

To proceed — u I did not go to Mr. Morris's for 
three weeks; in the mean time, I was expecting Ml 
Wentz to call upon me to show me the way to the 
place where Mary was to be boarded. He did not 
call. Mary, in the mean time, became impatient, 
went to Mrs. Wentz herself, told Mrs, Wentz that 



176 



I was tired of the business, and also told her that I 
said she was not willing that any thing should be 
done for her, which I declare was not the truth. 
Mrs. Wentz took very great offence at me, and of 
course I had nothing more to do in the business. 
There was a circumstance took place previous to 
this, which I will now mention: Mrs. Wentz called 
upon me and said, that she hardly thought that the 
child was Mr. Wentz's, as Mr. Wentz had told her 
he had never had any connexion with Mary Albert- 
son but once. I do not recollect my answer to this, 
but intimated to her that I did not think that that 
would excuse him, n I have already observed, that 
Mrs. Wentz's statement of what Mr. Wentz said to 
her was regal testimony, and in this case is positive 
proof of the criminal connexion. She further states 
u that Mary Albertson repeatedly told her, that the 
child was Mr. Wentz's and no other man's. Question 
by the session. Did Mr. Wentz ever ackowledge 
to you that he was criminal with Mary Albertson? 
Ans. No otherwise than what is stated, the thing 
appearing to be admitted by his readiness to do any 
thing that was necessary for her. §>ues. How long 
have you been acquainted with Mary Albertson? 
Ans. About two years, ghies. In conversation with 
Mary Albertson, did you consider her to have com- 
mon intellect? Arts, I do consider her to possess com- 
mon understanding and not deficient. £>ues. Did 
you know her male associates? Ans. I knew of 
none, and never heard her speak of any. ^hies. What 
do you think of her piety? Ans. She appeared to 
be pious, but no way bright. $2>ues. Do you know 
Isaac Burdock or any one that does know him? 
Ans. No." It is strange that we have never been 
able to find out who this Isaac Burdock is. u Mr. 
Wentz declined putting any questions." 

And now let me ask you, brethren, is not this 
legal testimony? Is it not positive proof that Mr. 
Wentz admitted that he had had illicit commerce 
with Mary Albertson, and believes that the child 



177 



whereof she was pregnant, was of his own begetting. 
Mary Albertson, you recollect, said that the child 
was Mr. Wentz's and no other man's. Take the 
whole of this story as it is told; if you credit the 
witness, and her credibility is triumphant, there is 
not a man in this house but will say that Mr. Wentz 
is the guilty man. 

I conclude the testimony of Mrs. Hagner here; 
convinced that it is legal testimony, positive proof, 
and to the point. But let me examine if we have 
not more of equal quality. Eliza Albertson, the 
sister of Mary Albertson, gave her testimony on be- 
half of the church. Had she any improper motive 
to deliver testimony against fier own sister? I know 
of none, nor can I imagine any, yet, she has decla- 
red on oath what her sister told her; and have you 
any reason to believe that her sister, Mary Albertson, 
did not then speak the truth. Then let us hear 
what she testified: — " She went to see Mary Albert- 
son at Mr. Morris's, w r here she had gone to service 
from Mr. Wentz's, suspecting that something was 
the matter, and requested she would tell her, when 
she did inform her what she supposed was her situ- 
ation; that she did not tell her positively that Mr. 
Wentz was the father; but said that she had told 
Mr. Wentz to his face, that he was the father of the 
child of which she was pregnant, and nobody else." 

The expression is the same nearly as that made by 
Mary Albertson to Mrs. Hagner; and here she is to 
be believed, though Mary, on her oath, denies that 
she told this to either the one or the other. 

To proceed — u She called several times to see her 
at Mr. Morris's, when Mary Albertson observed 
that she should say nothing about it, both for her 
own and for her sister's sake; that Mr. Wentz would 
provide for the child. Question by the session. 
Do you believe that Mary Albertson was in earnest 
and sincere when she said Mr. Wentz was the 
father? Ans. She did believe so, and still believes 
so. ghies. Do you believe or give credit to the oath 



178 



of Mary Albertson, which clears Mr. Wentz? Am-. 
I do not believe it or give credit to it. $%ues. What 
reason have you to doubt or discredit this? Ans, 
She was satisfied in her own mind from what she 
had heard from her sister, Mary Albertson, that the 
oath cannot be true, and nothing would persuade 
her to believe it to be true." 

These questions have been supposed to be leading 
questions which might influence the witness to give 
her opinions instead of stating facts with which she 
was acquainted, and that it was the business of the 
session to make up their judgment upon the facts 
alone. Moderator, the session intended no more by 
these questions than to come at the truth; they utterly 
disclaim every intention to trap the witness, but to 
inquire the reason why she would not credit her 
sister's oath, and I affirm the young woman had a 
right to give this opinion, and her reasons for it. 

But further — " In a conversation after the birth 
of the child, when Mary Albertson called on the 
witness, she said she had cleared Mr. Wentz; when 
the witness replied, you have cleared him with a 
lie. The answer was, that the communication made 
relative to Mr. Wentz was to her as a friend, and 
further stated, that Mary Albertson did not deny 
that she had taken a false oath; neither did she con- 
fess it." 

Why did she not deny that she had taken a false 
oath? She knew she had committed herself by a 
previous confession to her sister . 

The testimony proceeds: " Previously to this, 
anxious to see Mary Albertson, she called on Mr. 
Wentz to know where Mary Albertson was, when 
she refused to tell her; but said that she, Mary Al- 
bertson, was doing well. She then called where 
Mary Albertson lodged, and was refused admittance 
to her. Twice these calls were made, and she was 
refused. Mary Albertson then called upon the wit- 
ness, to whom it was mentioned that she, the witness, 
had called to see her, and was refused admittance., 



179 



The person seen when she was refused was a mulatto 
girl, who behaved very impertinently, and threatened 
what she would do if she called again, and would 
not take her word for it. She is not certain whether 
she first heard where Mary Albertson was from 
Mr. Sloan, or a young woman who lives next door. 
The third time she called to see Mary Albertson, 
the refusal was made by an old gentleman. Mr. 
Sioan, who was with the witness, told the old gen- 
tleman that the witness was the sister of Mary Al- 
bertson, and that Grace Bowker was there, waiting 
to see Mary Albertson. The old gentleman gave 
this information to a young woman, who went up 
stairs, and returned with an answer that it was not 
convenient to see Mary Albertson. ®H<es. Did 
Mary Albertson ever say that she would rather be 
burnt than expose Mr. Wentz's family? Ans. Mary 
Albertson told her, the witness, that before she 
would expose Mr. Wentz's family, she would rather 
be burnt, or throw herself entirely away, ^iiestions 
by the session. Did you ever hear of or suspect im- 
proper conduct in relation to Mr. Wentz and Mary 
Albertson, before she confessed to you? A?is. I did 
not know what was the matter, but Mary Albertson 
did not wish to stay at Mr. Wentz's; she did not., 
however, enter into particulars. ^ties. Do you 
know the male company Mary Albertson usually 
kept? Ans. Did not know; their residence was so 
far apart from each other. §>ues. Do you know 
the person of Isaac Burdock? Ans. I do not know, 
nor ever heard of such a person. Ques. Do you 
suppose Mary Albertson might have had an acquaint- 
ance with Isaac Burdock without your knowledge?. 
Ans. From the confidence subsisting between us, I 
do not believe it probable, though it may be possible. 
S^hies, Do you know or ha*e you ever heard of any 
one who did know Isaac Burdock? Ans. I never 
did." 

The preceding part of Eliza Albertson's testimony 
goes to show that the plan of privacy and conceal- 



180 



merit, which had been settled between Mrs. Wentz 
and Mrs. Hagner, was carried into strict execution, 
even against Mary Albertson's sister, and thus proves 
the truth of that part of Mrs. Hagner's testimony in 
relation to that point. It shows also the determina- 
tion, on the part of Mary Albertson, to keep secret 
her connexion with Mr. Wentz. She declared she 
would be burnt, or throw herself entirely away, ra- 
ther than she would expose Mr. Wentz's family. 
On these points Mr. Wentz put the following ques- 
tions, and received the answers. " ®>ues. Who called 
upon you the first time to go and see Mary Albert- 
son? Ans. There was a young woman of the name 
of Lucretia M'Clasky, who told me Mary Albertson 
was confined. §>ues. W as this before the conversa- 
tion which took place between you and Mr. Sloan in 
the alley? Ans. Yes; Mr. Sloan did request me to 
go up and see Mrs. Wentz, in order to obtain infor- 
mation where Mary Albertson was. ®>iies. Did 
you ever go to see Mary Albertson, after hearing 
of her situation at Mr. Morris's, before her confine- 
ment? Ans. Yes; several times. ®>ues. Did Mary 
Albertson ever tell you not to come and see her af- 
ter she should leave Mr. Morris's? Ans. She did 
request me not to call and see her. §>i(es. What 
induced you to call out in the street on the Sabbath, 
that your sister was confined in the third story of a 
house, and endeavour to raise a mob? Ans. I do 
sot remember that I called out in the street with any 
view to raise a mob: I might have mentioned it to a 
boy that was with me, and a young woman at the 
door, something relative to Mary Albertson,, but I 
do not know what; it was, however, not much of 
any thing. Shies. Do you recollect saying that Mr, 
Wentz had your sister confined in that house? Ans. 
I do not recollect ever saying such a thing." 

The witness intimated before she retired, that 
there was some more on her mind, and being urged 
to declare the whole truth, she said, " Mary Albert- 
son -told her, the night that the connexion took place 



181 



with Mr. Wentz, and that it was last New Year's 
night; being asked where it took place, she replied 
that it was in the sitting room, or where the family 
dines. She had been out at meeting, and Mr. Wentz 
was waiting for her to come home; the family having 
retired to bed. Mary Albertson told her that Mr. 
Wentz, some time after, was sick a-bed, in conse- 
quence of the connexion." 

Is this not point blank proof? You have the time 
fixed to the very night, the first of January, on which 
the connexion took place. You have the place 
where the act was consummated— in the sitting 
room. With a knowledge of these facts, Mr. Wentz 
might prove an alibi, if he was not then and there 
present. Why did he not attempt it, when he heard 
this statement? No attempt was made, and we pre- 
sume a conscious sense of guilt prevented it. He 
was, however, sick a-bed in consequence of the con- 
nexion. Conscience stung him after he had com- 
mitted the crime, though he afterwards endeavoured 
to conceal it, and for this purpose persists in denying 
it. Did David feel no compunctions after violating 
the marriage bed of Uriah?—- yet David vainly en- 
deavoured to cover it by committing another crime. 
David subsequently repented, and I hope this un- 
happy man will acknowledge his offence, and truly 
repent! As a brother, we feel an interest in his re- 
storation; every one of the session pray for this 
event, and we hope this court will pray for him, that 
God may grant him his grace to be truly penitent, 
and may enjoy hereafter eternal happiness. 

We have now shown you two legal witnesses 
supporting the same fact; and both give testimony 
Which supports the charge nade by the session. We 
have more testimony of the same kind to lay before 
the presbytery. Grace Bowker was a witness on 
behalf of the church; her character was unimpeach- 
ed tor piety and veracity. Elizabeth Culp, who had 
known her for better than six years, says that she is 
~a woman of piety; that in giving testimony she 

0. 



/ 



182 



would say nothing but the truth, and as far as she 
knows, Mrs. Bowker is in communion of the church 
and of good standing. Abigail Smith testifies that 
she has known Grace Bowker two or three years, 
believes her to be a woman of piety, and would 
speak the truth if called upon to give testimony; 
she is in the communion of the church and in good 
standing. It has been asked why we fortified cha- 
racters that were unimpeached? We had reasons for 
it. An artful but improper question had been pro- 
posed by the accused, calculated to weaken the cre- 
dibility of a witness; the session therefore brought 
forward evidence to support her character, and as 
they wished to know what credit was due to others, 
they had their characters also established. 

I will now adduce Grace Bowker' l s testimony, pre- 
viously observing that these three witnesses were in 
the confidence of Mary Albertson, and she commu- 
nicated to them the secrets of her heart; and in their 
relation of those communications to the session, they 
were suffused in tears; but all agree. Grace Bowker 
says that" In the month of March last Mary Albert- 
son informed me of her situation, I then mentioned 
Mr. Wentz as being the man I suspected. She did 
not deny it; but said, don't ask me. The reason why 
I named Mr. Wentz was, that she had told a 
friend of hers who had told me that Mr. Wentz had 
pursued her improperly. I told her that I supposed 
I knew, and she replied, she supposed I did. From 
that time, as often as I saw her, she always spoke 
as if she had told me that he was the person. She 
also told me that she had acknowledged, before Mrs. 
Wentz and Mrs. Hagner, her situation, and that Mr. 
Wentz was the father of the child of which she was 
pregnant. She told me that Mr. Wentz had said 
that he would comply with any terms that Mrs. 
Wentz and Mrs. Hagner would propose. At one 
time, when I called on her, she said they had provi- 
ded a place for her out towards Schuylkill, on Pine 
or Spruce-street, where she might board during her 



183 



confinement and three months previous. She was 
not to go in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Wentz, as 
if they were to provide for her; but as if the father 
of the child had left the city, and left money in her 
hands. She had calculated that all the expense 
would be about fifty dollars. When I saw her again, 
the people where she was to have gone to, had re- 
fused to take her on the terms that was first agreed 
upon. The next time I saw her, she was at Mr. 
Wentz's own house. She said that Mrs. Wentz was 
looking out for a place to put her to board, but I do 
not know where. I called once again, but I did not 
see herself, but saw Mrs. Wentz, who said that she 
had a place provided for her. Airs. Wentz, I think, 
did not know that I was acquainted with particulars, 
and expressed that she was very sorry for Mary as 
she had been brought up in her father's family, and 
would do what she could for her, that she should not 
suffer. I called ^at the place where Mary was con- 
fined, when the gentleman who kept the house de- 
nied her being there. A person who was with me, 
said that it was the place, and he need not deny it. 
The person then acknowledged that she was there, 
but could not see any person. He then sent my name 
up to Mary, to know if it would be convenient to see 
me; when she answered, No; it would not be con-, 
venient to see any person. The next evening Mary 
Albertson called to see me at my residence; she 
wished to know if I was going to attend the meeting 
of the session. I told her it would be a very painful 
thing, but if I felt it impressed on my mind as being 
a duty, I should attend it. She said she felt herself 
guilty, and he was guilty also — understanding her 
to mean Mr. Wentz. She said that she felt as if 
she did not mind being exposed, we both deserve it, 
but for Mrs. Wentz's sake and the children's sake, 
she begged that I would not appear. I said to Ma- 
ry Albertson that I understood she had cleared him; 
and she replied, Yes; and I will, if I have to beg 
my bread from door to door. She said she had 



i 



164 



promised to keep it a secret, and she would. I then 
told her she had better come forward and declare 
the truth. She seemed incensed against those who 
had been her friends. I told her she esteemed him 
to be her friend, who had been her greatest enemy: 
she said that none of us, who pretended to be her 
friends, would give the smallest sum to support 
her, provided she declared the truth against him. — 
®h'.estion by the session. How long have you been 
acquainted with Mary Albertson? Ans. I have 
known her for almost seven years, having belonged 
to the same class, ^iies. Do you think her to be 
a person of common understanding, and not defective? 
Ans. Yes; I have always thought her so, and esteem- 
ed her upright and pious. §>ues. Do you know 
Isaac Burdock? Ans. I do not. ®>ues. Do you 
know her male acquaintances? Ans. I do know 
those who were her acquaintances as members of 
the class to which she belonged. Question by Mr. 
Wentz* You have been frequently in our house, 
backward and forward? Ans. I have been frequently 
at your house, and feel it a painful duty to appear 
here against you." 

She confided to three persons. What reason have 
we to doubt she was not sincere. She said she had 
confessed to Mrs. Wentz and Mrs. Hagner. This 
is corroborated by Mrs. Hagner; and they were exa- 
mined apart. True, it is contradicted by Mrs. 
Wentz; but then be it remembered that her testimo- 
ny is not only illegal, but she also had the advantage 
of her husband's communication of what had passed 
before session, by which she certainly has profited, 
in contradicting the evidence of this and some other 
of the witnesses. These witnesses cannot be suppo- 
sed to have been influenced by any improper motives; 
it was a sense of duty that brought them before the 
session. The last said she felt it a painful duty to 
appear against him. Mary Albertson begged that 
she would not appear before the session, not for her 
own sake, but for the sake of Mrs. Wentz and the 



185 



children. She acknowledged her own guilt and his, 
and did not shrink from an exposure, either on his 
or her own account; she admitted that both deserved 
it. Can any testimony be more efficient? No. Scarce- 
ly the confession of Mr. Wentz himself that he had 
had illicit intercourse with the girl, could more 
strongly carry conviction to any man's mind, than 
what does the testimony thus clearly detailed. Here 
then are three witnesses, whose testimony is legal; 
their characters are pure from suspicion, and their 
evidence goes to one point, that is, the illicit com- 
merce of Samuel Wentz with Mary Albertson, and 
her confession that he is the father of the child. 
But I have one more, 

That is Mary Snyder on behalf of the church, and 
her character is supported by Lydta Hart, who af- 
firmed, that she has known her ever since she was 
eight years of age. I brought her up. She has 
lived with me about twenty-three years; she left 
my family in May last; her general conduct is cor- 
rect — quite correct — strictly honest; neither directly 
nor indirectly would she tell an untruth. I believe 
her to be particularly careful in that respect. I do 
believe her to be a pious girl. Whilst she lived 
with me I put as much confidence in her as in my 
own children, if not more." 

Well, I presume no objection will be taken to 
what Mary Snyder testifies: then be pleased to hear 
what she says. 

a That Mary Albertson told her about two years 
since, that Mr. Wentz made very free with her, 
alleging that he had a particular regard for her; 
when she told Mr. Wentz she would be under the 
obligation of leaving his house; when Mr. Wentz 
said, no, he would in future behave better to her. I 
called on Mary Albertson at Mr. Morris's, and ask- 
ed her how she could give up to Mr. Wentz, know- 
ing that he had a family? She said she did not know- 
how it was, but, like Sampson, she was shorn of 
her strength. I then asked how Mrs. Wentz bore 



186 



it? when she answered, that she bore it like a chris- 
tian; had she not have been a christian, she could 
not have been supported under it. I then told her, 
I though it better for her to go into the country, 
when she said, no, if she went into the country Mr. 
Wentz would do nothing for her, as it would be 
making it known among his people. I then spoke 
to her about a maintainance and that it was necessary 
to swear the child; she said, no, that she would 
rather suffer than do so on account of his family; 
then she said that both Mr. and Mrs. Wentz told 
her, that neither she nor the child should ever suffer, 
provided she would keep it a secret. §>iiestion by 
the session. Have you been to see Mary? Ans. I 
have not. I called but was not permitted to see 
her. £>ues. How long have you known Mary? Ans, 
For eight years, having belonged to the same class. 
She has always supported a good character till the 
present affair. §>ues. Do you know of Mary having 
any male acquaintances? Ans. I do not. ^ues. 
Do you know any thing of Isaac Burdock? Ans. I 
do not; never heard of his name till this time. ®>ues. 
Did Mary admit to you that this child was Mr. 
Wentz's? Ans. She did, and the impression on my 
mind always was that he was the father. She re- 
peatedly mentioned that she would rather suffer than 
expose Mr. Wentz's family." 

Mary Snyder's testimony agrees with the other 
witnesses; they were examined separately, and there 
could not be any combination. I have now brought 
point blank witnesses to show that Mr. Wentz was 
the father. 

The testimony of these witnesses appears satisfac- 
tory and conclusive. They believed every thing 
which was told them by Mary Albertson, and as 
they had no reason to testify the matters they have 
stated, but a sense of duty as religious and consci- 
entious christians, I have given credence to their 
testimony, and so did every member of the session. 
.Mary Albertson told to them the truth. True, she 



T87 



did not tell her tale on oath; yet as there was no 
preconcert, nor reason to be found for the story, 
but what was in the matter of fact, she must on 
those points be credited; though she afterwards 
swore before Alderman Christian, that Isaac Bur- 
dock was the father of the child, who, I believe, has 
no existence. 

We have now gone through the testimony on re- 
cord, and I ask this court, is there not sufficient to 
substantiate the charge against Mr. Wentz? Here 
are not one, but many witnesses to prove the two 
parts of which the charge consists: illicit commerce 
with Mary Albertson and being the father of her 
child. Mrs. Hagner is a pious, intelligent and un- 
impeached witness, and she testifies that Mr. Wentz 
admitted his guilt to her, and states many circum- 
stances connected with this matter, which show that 
her testimony is worthy of full credit. To this 
testimony is added that of Mrs. Massey Evans, an 
eye and an ear witness, who testifies to the imprudent, 
unchristian, and reproachful behaviour of Mr. 
Wentz towards Mary Albertson in her own pre- 
sence; and the testimony of these witnesses is cor- 
roborated by that of Mr. and Mrs. Giider, Grace 
Bowker, Mary Snyder and Elizabeth Albertson, who 
all testify in regard to the confessions of the unfor- 
tunate woman to them. Shall these be regarded as 
hearsay witnesses, and on this ground be set aside 
as if of no weight? By what rule? The practice of 
civil courts. And do civil courts never receive such 
evidence? Do they not admit the testimony of a 
witness, testifying the declarations of a dying man, 
concerning his murderers to corroborate other testi- 
mony? Why do they admit such testimony? Be- 
cause such testimony in these peculiar circumstances 
is deemed credible and may justly form an exception 
to a general rule. And was it not right in the ses- 
sion to admit the testimony of these witnesses? 
Were not the circumstances such as to justify them 
-in regarding it as an exception to a general rule? 



188 



The characters of the witnesses are entirely fair and 
unimpeached, and they testify to what they heard 
from the lips of the woman herself. She certainly 
knew whether Mr. Wentz had criminal intercourse 
with her or not. Look at the circumstances in 
which she made her several confessions and who can 
doubt that she spake the truth? She indeed after- 
wards delivered a testimony utterly unworthy of 
credit; but this fact does not destroy credit in her 
former declarations. In the latter case, she spake 
under the influence of temptation; in the former, she 
uttered the language of her heart, freed from the 
influence of temptation. Who can doubt this? Evi- 
dence is intended for the purpose of conviction; and 
does not her confessing bring conviction to the mind? 
Can any member of this court refuse to believe that 
she uttered the truth when she made confession to 
her friends. Will it be said that a civil court would 
not admit the testimony of these witnesses? The 
practice in civil and ecclesiastical courts differs in 
certain particulars in regard to testimony. The 
civil court will convict a man in such a case as is 
before us, on the deposition of one witness and that 
an associate in the crime. The ecclesiastical court 
will not convict a person on the testimony of one 
witness. Let it be further observed that our direc- 
tory contains no specific rules in regard to the com- 
petency of witnesses. While therefore a session, in 
trying a cause, should, as far as the members may be 
acquainted with the rules of evidence, established in 
civil courts, pay due respect to them; yet they are 
not bound in all cases to observe them. Common 
sense must sometimes be their guide; and in cases 
clearly and strongly marked they may allow of an 
exception to a general rule. And I ask where will 
you fnd a case more clearly and strongly marked 
than that before us. I acknowledge that if our di- 
rectory had prescribed a rule on the subject, or had 
bound us to observe the rules of civil courts, no ex- 
ception not authorised by civil courts would have 



189 



been warranted; but the directory has done neither. 
In such circumstances I ask, has not the session 
judged and acted right? 

Here then, let it be repeated, is not one, but many 
witnesses. Here is the confession both of Mr. 
Wentz himself and of Mary Albertson, detailed in 
the testimony of these witnesses to establish his 
guilt. Does the rule in our book require more than 
this? Had not the session ample ground on which 
to rest their judgment? Had they not the positive 
testimony of Mrs. Hagner deposing Mr. Wentz's 
acknowledgement of his own guilt, corroborated by 
the testimony of Massey Evans, Eliza Albertson and 
several others. 

To place the matter in a different light let a sup- 
position be made. Suppose Isaac Burdock had ex- 
istence, and he was stigmatized as the father of this 
illegitimate child,* suppose that conscious of his 
innocence, he should carry his complaint to the 
civil court and there prove, by a critical examination 
of Mary Albertson's testimony, that it was unwor- 
thy of credit: suppose that he should introduce the 
testimony of Mrs. Hagner and others, would he not 
be cleared of the foul imputation on his character? 
And suppose now, an indictment brought against 
Mr. Wentz, would not the testimony upon the re- 
cord of the session be sufficient to establish his 
guilt? 

There is another light in which the testimony of 
the witnesses, the advocate of the appellant would 
set aside as hearsay. Witnesses may be viewed 
and, that is, as set in opposition to the testimony of 
Mary Albertson. Viewed in this light, he w- ill not 
have any pretext for calling them hearsay witnesses. 
They are legal witnesses, and any court of justice 
would admit their testimony to destroy that of Mary 
Albertson. Now look at her testimony and look at 
theirs, and you will find that they are entirely oppo- 
site. Had she admitted what Mr. and Mrs. Gil- 
der, Grace Bowker, Mary Snyder, and her sister have 



190 

testified she confessed to them, and asserted 
spake falsely, there would not have been that d: 
opposition between them. But as he has roundly 
denied that she said to them what they have testi- 
fied she did say to them, we are brought to the ne- 
cessity of believing that she uttered a falsehood 
before the session, or, that all these respectable wit- 
nesses, who had no purpose to answer, and were 
influenced by no temptation in giving their testi- 
mony, have uttered falsehood. Who can hesitate in 
such a case? We are constrained to believe their 
testimony and reject hers: and we are constrained 
also to believe that the confessions made to them 
were true; for, why did she not deny what they tes- 
tified, but because she was conscious that she made 
a sincere confession to them? 

The testimony of these witnesses then must be 
received and united with that of Mrs. Hagner and 
Mrs. Evans; they are abundantly sufficient to satisfy 
the demand of the rule in our book and to establish 
the guilt of Mr. Wentz. 

I have done, Moderator. The testimony is be- 
fore you. It remains for you to affirm or to reverse 
the judgment of the session. 



The proceedings of the session containing the 
trial of Mr. Wentz as published in this work, Was 
printed from the minutes of the session, attested by 
the clerk. The remarks of Mr. Bradford before 
the presbytery were copied by the stenographer, and 
are essentially correct. Mr. Henry and Dr. Jane- 
way's remarks are published as they were received 
from the reporter; the difficulties of obtaining them 
have been mentioned in a note on page 139. There 
now remains Mr. Bradford's reply to Dr. Janeway; 
as these remarks are of much importance to the case 



191 



and may be considered as an ample refutation of 
Dr. Janeway's argument. It is to be seriously re- 
gretted that they can not be obtained to be inserted 
with the rest of the proceedings. It is however pre- 
sumed that a fair statement of the facts will be a suf- 
ficient apology for their absence. 

As soon as Mr. Wentz ascertained that his case 
was coming before the presbytery, he engaged Mr. 
Thomas Lloyd to report the proceedings of that ju- 
dicatory and the arguments on each side. Mr. 
Lloyd accordingly attended and took down the ob- 
servations and remarks of the different delegates to 
that body. In order that the work might appear as 
early as possible, parts of the manuscript were put 
into the hands of the printer before the whole was 
furnished by Mr. Lloyd, there being no doubt of his 
being able to furnish the remainder as fast as it 
would be required by the printer. This was, indeed, 
performed, until the conclusion of Mr. Bradford's 
speech. There appeared, until then, but little more 
delay than what might be reasonably accounted for, 
though the tenour of Mr. Lloyd's conduct and con- 
versation was not of the kind which might be ex- 
pected by the employer from the employed. 

Mr. Henry's short remarks were obtained, but by 
the utmost exertions, and even then, only in the pre- 
sent form, and not in Mr. Lloyd's hand writing. 
Dr. Jane way's remarks were likewise not received 
from Mr. Lloyd, until so many vague excuses, 
promises and suppositions had been offered, that they 
were entirely despaired of. These obstacles howev- 
er, being in part overcome, it was fondly hoped that 
there would be nothing to hinder the completion of 
the work; but it seems that Mr. Lloyd took umbrage 
at the publisher's note, prefixed to Mr. Henry's re- 



192 



marks, and absolutely refuses to give up the remainder 
of the copy, which included Mr. Bradford's reply to 
Dr. Janeway's, unless that part of the sheet, containing 
Mr. Henry's observations be completely destroyed, 
and another one printed without the obnoxious sen- 
tence. Mr. Lloyd is mentioned as being offended; 
though it is not to be conceived what interest he can 
have in suppressing any part of the proceedings; nor 
is it presumed, that without some more powerful 
motive than the mere propriety of the work, he 
would venture to affect airs and exercise authority, 
so little authorised by the hireling station which he 
was occupying in this business. Mr. Lloyd was 
engaged by Mr. Wentz to report the proceedings of 
the presbytery exactly as they occurred, to give the 
remarks as -they were made before that body, and 
then hand them to his employer. It was not ex- 
pected that every speaker was to new-mould his 
speech, was to erase, diminish and transcribe, until 
his observations should have the appearance of what 
they ought to have been, rather than what they were* 
True, indeed, the sum of ten dollars per day, may 
be considered but a trifling guarantee for correct- 
ness and fidelity; but honour was consulted by the 
employer, rather than interest, and a presumption 
was entertained that an engagement to furnish what 
was easily obtained, would be sufficient to insure a 
periect fulfilment, when this engagement was predi- 
ca'^d on a sufficient recompense. If Mr. Lloyd 
really wished to furnish Mr. Wentz with a copy of 
Doctor Janeway's and Mr. Henry's remarks as he 
had taken them down from the speakers' mouths, 
why was it necessary thar he should be in company 
with those gentlemen several times a day, during 
the time that he was transcribing their remarks?. 



19a 



How did it happen that Mr. Wentz rarely called on 
Mr. Lloyd to obtain copy for the printer, without 
being informed that Mr. Lloyd was at Doctor Jane- 
way's, that Doctor Janeway had been at Mr. Lloyd's 
house once or twice that day, or that his son or ser- 
vant had called two or three times for Mr. Lioyd to 
come down and write a little while with himr Why, 
too, was the copy submitted to those gentlemen, for 
their examination, alteration, mutilation, and tran- 
scription? Was it that Mr. Lloyd is not capable of 
taking down a speech as delivered; or that other 
considerations induced him to enter into a coalition 
with those delegates to furnish only what they might 
think politic, as it was not in their power to suppress 
the whole? The former of these inquiries involves 
an idea derogatory to the professional character of 
Mr. Lloyd; the later, if admitted, would be of a 
more sombre cast — neither is hazarded as an asser- 
tion, though the facts on which they are predicated 
are undeniable. 

It is not intended, that in this short account for 
the absence of certain parts of the report, any charge 
should be made, nor that any impeachment of con- 
duct should be immediately infered from a mere 
statement of facts. What ever subsequent under- 
standing may have existed between Mr. Lloyd and 
the delegates, certain it is, that this gentleman's 
loquacity, in the earlier stages of the proceedings, 
has led him to the disclosure of a fact, which, taken in 
connexion with the events already detailed, might 
lead to conclusions which charity herself could 
scarcely withhold. It is a matter of notoriety w r ith 
those who are acquainted with the general proceed- 
ings in this case, that the members of the session 
and particularly the delegates to the presbytery > 

R 



194 



were desirous of suppressing the report of the trial. 
Hints at consequences, and threats of punishment, 
however, proved in vain; we knowjnot that any mem- 
ber proceeded farther. We will state a circumstance 
which may have some relation to their anxious en- 
deavours at preventing the publication. 

Mr. Lloyd has said, and frequently repeated, in 
the presence of several respectable gentlemen, that 
soon after it was ascertained, that Mr. Wentz had 
fully determined to publish the trial, two gentlemen, 
(one, a young man, dressed in black, and wearing 
spectacles^) called upon him (Mr, Lloyd) and after 
some desultory conversation, offered him between one 
and two hundred dollars to destroy the copy, then i?i 
his possession; as this was refused by Mr. Lloyd, the 
offer was gradually increased to five hundred dollars. 
This, Mr. Lloyd says, he also refused. No higher 
sum was offered, as those two gentlemen said that 
this was, the highest sum they were authorised to 
offer. 

It was known that he had the copy, and it would 
be too dangerous to destroy it; mutilation might, 
however be made, and parts suppressed without so 
flagrant an exposure of fears and motives, and those 
remarks which were intended improperly to influence 
the court, might now, having failed of success, be 
committed to oblivion by the author, lest they should 
« return the poisoned chalice to his own lips." 

These are facts from which we draw no inferences, 
nor account for correspondent conduct; with which 
in this place we connect no other circumstance. We 
do not even guess at the ones concerned in the at- * 
tempt at bribery, much less presume to identify 
them with the better known persons who are so 
busy in the work of • partial alterations, or unessen- 



195 



tial additions. We only present the facts to the 
reader, in order to account for the consequences; we 
leave him to judge of the circumstances, to compare 
them with what else has been exhibited, and then 
inquire what relation can exist between them. 

Whatever influence may have been exercised upon 
Mr. Lloyd, by those who are interested in retarding 
the work, he has certainly placed himself in no very 
favourable light with his former friends. He was 
employed to perform a certain stipulated task, for a 
stipulated sum; it was not his duty nor right to 
inquire into the use to which the work was to be 
applied; he had his course of duty assigned as plainly 
and distinctly as any person has, who labours for a 
reward; his meanly detaining the papers which really 
belong to Mr. Wentz, and his other conduct in con- 
nexion with his engagement, may have been influen- 
ced by other motives than we knew of. We venture 
no assertion on the subject, beside the plain fact. 
The effect which Mr. Lloyd's conduct has made on 
the disinterested, may be gathered from a letter, ad- 
dressed to him by one of his earliest and oldest 
friends. 

Cherry-street, June Tth } 1820. 

Mr. Thomas Lloyd, 

Sir — With what astonishment did I hear, this day from Mr. 
Wentz, that you had sent round to his persecutors, your mi- 
nutes for correction. Good God! the opinion I entertained of 
you was, that you were a man of sterling integrity, and not to be 
bought. If this is correct, I have been most shamefully mista- 
ken in the integrity of my countryman, and shall not, in future, 
give the least credit to his representations. What! fly from 
your own knowledge of facts? It cannot be so, surely! Do 
the thing that is right, and give the fair representation of that 
court, that would bring shame on the inquisition of Portugal 1 ; 



196 



that of Spain is no more, to the virtue and honour of the coun- 
try; and shall it revive in America? God forbid! I atterided 
two days on the inquisitorial denunciation of Mr. Wentz, and 
received the clearest conviction, that there was not a shadow 
of proof against him — the defamation of Dr. -r to the con- 
trary notwithstanding-, which in my house, on your return from 
the court, you fully aod honourably acknowledged. What, 
then be bribed from it! It cannot surely be the Thomas 
Lloyd, that stood firmly in integrity against all the powers Oi 
England's Government. 

Yours, if you please,. 

EDWARD MOTT. 
N. B. Remember, sir, I went to the hearing perfectly un- 
biased, and from the promulgation of the defamation, felt hos- 
tile to Mr. W entz, and the removal of that impression was 
from the hearing of facts. 

E. M. 

The reader is now in possession of the facts, rela^ 
live to the suppression of Mr. Bradford's reply. We. 
forbear any further comments on this perplexing 
affair. We think that the inference to be drawn from 
the several circumstances, are quite plain, and will 
scarcely escape the observation of any unprejudiced 
person. 

When Mr. Bradford had closed his reply to Dr. 
janeway, the Rev. Mr. Birch, after some very perti- 
nent remarks, moved, that the presbytery should 
reverse the decision of the session. This motion 
was advocated by the Rev. Dr. Wilson, Rev. Mr. 
Patterson, Rev. Mr. Jones, and several other dele- 
gates, and finally prevailed. 

The presbytery did therefore reverse the 
decision of the session. 

It is to be regretted, that among other articles 
detained by Mr. Lloyd, are notes of the remarks, 
made by members of the presbytery, in favour of, 
and against reversing the decision of the session. 



I 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



In the introductory remarks to this trial, a general 
view of the character, motives, and testimony of 
witnesses was taken, and some remarks offered on 
the feelings evinced by the prosecutors and judges 
of this case, during the trial by the session and pres- 
bytery. At that time the remarks T*f Dr. Janeway 
before the presbytery, had not been received from 
the stenographer; some general strictures on this 
gentleman's conduct, were therefore, all that could 
be offered. His speech in favour of the prosecution, 
having been received, and being now inclosed in the 
body of the work, though divested of almost all the 
sting, which was meant to harrow up the lacerated 
feelings of the accused, and add the keenest insult to. 
the deepest injury. The manner too, which pointed 
the harrowing words with venom, must necessarily 
be wanting; the pencil and not the pen, could em- 
body the chilling feelings of the speaker; catch the 
settled coldness of the countenance, and give the 
studied smoothness of the brow, which, like the 
glossy expanse of a deceitful shoal, covered the 
deadly and inviting rocks, over which the commotio,!! 
of a sweeping storm would have raised a beacon. 

In the proceedings of the presbytery, the mind is 
to be withdrawn from the body which composed the 

session, and fixed only on its delegates, the Rev. 

R 2 



198 



Dr. Janeway and Mr. Alexander Henry. These 
men had pronounced Mr. Wentz guilty in the 
session. He had appealed to a higher judica- 
tory from the injustice and illegality of the deci- 
sion. In the interim between the closing of the 
session and the meeting of the presbytery, a period 
of several months, there was sufficient time for the 
passions to be lulled. The feelings which the for- 
mer trial exhibited, it might be hoped, would be 
hushed into moderation, and men who appeared in- 
capable of feeling, might have been brought to think. 
In this, the fond expectations of reason were disap- 
pointed. Freed from the office of judging, and 
placed in the more agreeable light of prosecutors, 
the passions of the delegates appear to have been 
roused by some new excitement, and as the hope of 
prosecuting their vengeance receded; the earnestness 
of its- pursuit seemed proportionably to increase. 

Where were those charitable constructions which 
the sacred office might impose on one of the dele- 
gates, and brotherly affection might require at the 
hand of the other? The feelings of the former were 
merged in the vindictive malice of the monk — the 
cold, unfeeling and self-gratifying exercise of prero- 
gatives, granted for holier and purer purposes, than 
the subversion of individual peace and domestic 
tranquillity. The opinions of the latter, if they are 
to be discovered by his words or actions, were care- 
fully moulded by a master-hand and supported by a 
settled indifference to whatever might be offered in 
opposition. 



199 



The lay delegate from the session to the presby- 
tery, may claim some indulgence from the censure 
which his proceeding deserve, from the idea that in 
whatever he may have offered or done, his judg- 
ment was the last faculty engaged. But what must 
have been the feelings of the other delegate. He 
stood the voice of the prosecution, and every eye 
was turned upon him. Is it possible that self com- 
placency could so blind him to his situation, that he 
could not see that the astonishment of a large part 
of the presbytery at his daring assertions, and un- 
brotherly attacks, was mingled with some deci- 
sive tokens of profound contempt for a man, who 
could so descend from the dignity of his calling as 
to become the proscriber of a professing christian, 
to be the retailer and rectifier of such detestable evi- 
dence as was admitted by the session against Mr. 
Wentz. 

As the publisher of this work is deprived of Mr. 
Bradford's excellent reply, by reasons already stated, 
it will be necessary that some slight notice be taken 
of a few of Dr. Janeways's leading remarks, and a 
few observations made on the manner in which he 
Has treated the witnesses and their testimony. 
Much weight appears to be laid by the delegates on 
the proceedings of civil courts, and frequent allusion 
made to their practice, with occasional specimens of 
the technical phrase of the bar. Did the Doctor 
know or did he forget to mention that such a case, 
prosecuted under such a charge, and supported by 
such witnesses would be dismissed from a civil 



200 



court as an outrage upon legal custom and commoo 
sense — and the man who could be found weak 
enough to advocate it, would meet the contempt he 
deserved from every person who had sense enough 
to discover his motives, or independence enough to 
express an opinion. 

The whole of this case turns on the credibility of 
Mary Albertson's oath. If they would admit as evi- 
dence what she deposed upon oath or affirmation, 
the prosecution must necessarily expire, for she de- 
posed point blank, to use a favourite phrase, that Mr. 
Wentz was not only not the father of her child, but 
that he had never offered any improper conduct to- 
wards her, or ever assumed any unbecoming liberty 
with her. This is conclusive evidence; but the ses- 
sion endeavour to destroy the weight of this strong 
and affirmed assertion, by the force of what it is al- 
ledged she said to some woman at a previous time. 
It is not pretended at all that what she said was upon 
oath; yet, this is brought in to set aside the weight 
of her testimony, given under affirmation. Now, if 
the bare assertion of a person who is admitted as an 
evidence is to be taken in a court, of what use is any 
qualifying oath or affirmation? Certainly of none. 
An oath is administered to a witness, because it is 
presumed that its solemnity will lead him to declare 
the truth more readily than would a simple assertion, 
without the penalty of an oath, if then legally the 
depo'sition of a person on oath is to be considered of 
more consequence than a mere unqualified assertion, 
how could the session admit of the evidence of Mrs. 



201 



and Miss Hagner, which was, even if true, no more 
than a common declaration of Mary Albertson, while 
their whole statement is contradicted by Mary Al- 
bertson's evidence under oath. 

Mary Albertson's testimony then was not to be 
neglected, it stood before the session in a point of 
view which must have been received; and being re- 
ceived, it must have destroyed the weight of Grace 
Bowker, and Mrs. and Miss Hagner's story. 

Much stress is laid upon the absence of Isaac Bur- 
dock, and the circumstances of his not being known 
to any person. This would not be without its weight, 
if the scene of this unhappy transaction had been laid 
in a village, there the appearance of a stranger would 
be noticed, and his attention to a female would have 
formed a fruitful subject for neighbouring gossip- 
ping. But in a city like Philadelphia, hundreds 
may go and come daily and excite no curiosity; stran- 
gers of distinction, and foreign ambassadors arrive at, 
and leave our city, and were it not for the officious 
attention of our news papers, few would be apprised 
of the circumstance: the absence of an obscure indi- 
vidual, then, would scarcely make an hiatus in our 
population. But this is not the view which those ac- 
quainted with life would be likely to take of this 
circumstance. 

Mary Albertson deposed, that she never met Bur- 
dock at any other place than at church, during or; 
after evening service. To the mind which seeks 
only the Lord in the service of the sanctuary, such a 
pollution of christian privileges, would be consider- 



202 



ed as an outrage upon every feeling of devotion, 
and the bare assertion might be construed into an 
attempt to bring a stain upon the character of chris- 
tians and lessen the value which piety sets upon her 
" Sabbath and sanctuary seasons." But it is a fact 
of general notoriety, that the house of God, when 
open for evening service, is frequently, and when 
the service is regular, generally made the place of 
assignation for those who have not yet launched into 
the open sea of vice. The doors of churches are 
infested every evening of worship by the lewd and 
profane, who wait to lure the weak and unsuspecting, 
or become themselves the dupes of superior infamy. 
This is so much the case, that at some of the churches 
in this city, which are opened for evening service, 
it has become necessary to place several persons in 
front of the building, to prevent the scenes of riot 
and confusion which might otherwise ensue, and 
which even with those precautions, sometimes dis- 
turb the devotion of those who have associated for 
more hallowed purposes. 

Whatever were Mary Albertson's motives, it is 
admitted that she frequently attended Mr. Ballen- 
tine's meeting, in the evening, totally, unattended. 
A young woman alone in the evening} and not in 
the centre of the city, would be likely to attract the 
observation of a person, watching for the means of 
gratifying unlawful passions; under such circumstan- 
ces, it appears she was accosted by Burdock who at- 
tended her home. The prospect of arriving at the end 
of his desires, it seems, induced him to meet her 



203 



again, and the result of this imprudent acquaintance 
was what it is under similar circumstances nine 
times out of ten. 

It is not our wish to pursue this unhappy affair 
through all its ramifications, to describe the pow er 
of temptation and the weakness of resistance, the ex- 
tent of passion, and the weak barriers which a sense 
of propriety might oppose. It is certainly easier to 
suppose, that a female would yield herself to a man 
who could at least make her the assurance which 
such a sacrifice generally requires, than to a person 
whom she knew to be already married, and who con- 
sequently could not offer the terms on which such , 
concessions are yielded. If the result of this adven- 
ture were novel, or if the whole proceedings were 
without precedent, then the prosecutors of Mr, 
Wentz might find some better reason for doubting 
the oath of Mary Albertson. But the records of 
the overseers of the poor will furnish ample testimo- 
ny, that such a course of conduct is that which is 
generally pursued by those who apply to them for 
redress, and that of the cases of bastardy, a large 
proportion may be traced to these fortuitous acquain- 
tances, where accident alone discovers the father of 
the child. As to the name of Burdock not being 
known, little could be made of this in argument 
against her testimony. He might, as she states, have 
been a mere sojourner in our city; and when he 
discovered the consequence of his amour r have de- 
camped to save the expense of prosecution. This 
might have been the fact with the person; but the 



is un- 
ndes- 

to be 



204 

name,tojudgefrom general precedents, was assumed. 
Would it be likely, that a young man who was un- 
principled enough to associate himself thus clandes- 
tinely with an obscure female, would make uj 
his real name in this dark affair? It is not to 
supposed that he would: and in the numerous cases 
of this unpleasant nature, which fiave come before 
the magistrates, it has been found, that nine times 
in ten, where the parties had not a previous acquain- 
tance, the man had assumed another name, and 
given a wrong place of residence: indeed the course 
is natural. No man lighteth a candle or blowcth 
trumpet in the consummation of such acts. 

It is a fact which may easily be proved, by 
currence to the records of the aldermen of our city, 
that men have been cited to appear before them 
charged with the commission of these crimes, who, 
when brought into the presence of the females, could 
not be identified by them; and it subsequently ap- 
peared that their names had been assumed by some 
other persons and the intrigue thus carried on. 

Some advantage is taken of the circumstance of 
Mary Albertson's friends not knowing Burdock. 
This is easily accounted for, in having never met him 
at the methodist meeting of which she was a mem- 
ber. Nor is it to be supposed, that a female who 
had given up herself to the solicitation of a man who 
was comparatively a stranger, would wish to intro- 
duce her paramour to her acquaintances, when they 
were all professors of religion. Strange, therefore, 
as may appear this unfortunate connexion between 



205 



Mary Albertson and the person calling himselt 
Isaac Burdock, it will be found to have been begun, 
pursued and dissolved in the same manner as thou- 
sands are every year in our city — this differing from 
the others only in the circumstance of its being 
visited upon the head of a man, whom neither the 
law, common sense, nor even the unfortunate woman 
supposes guilty. 

The character of Mrs. Hagner has been freely 
descanted on in the introductory remarks. A re- 
spect for the feelings of the persons who testified in 
favour of her character, induces us to withhold fur- 
ther comment on this witness. She has given herself a 
character in her testimony, which will not easily be 
mistaken or soon forgotten. The idea which she af- 
fects to entertain of Mr. Wentz, during the time of 
Mary Albertson's absence from his house, when her 
own daughter was living in his family by her solici- 
tation, and occupying the same situation which Mary 
Albertson filled, is such a glaring proof of the false- 
hood of her assertion, and such a satire on her 
morbid delicacy, that we cannot submit the idea and 
the inference which we, and almost every person, 
must draw from it without a sufficient testimony, 
that such was the fact. With this view, we intro- 
duce the following certificate. 

We the subscribers, being 1 acquainted with Mr. Samuel 
Wentz, and intimate in his family, certify, that after Mary 
Albertson had left Mr. Wentz's house, in order to be confined 
of her child, which was born on the 14th of September, 1819. 
*Leonora Hagner did live in the family of Mr. Wentz, and at- 

* The clerk of the session wrote this name Eleanor. 
S 



206 



tended to the duties of the house in which we had usually seen 
Mary Albertson employed. We further state, that the time 
in which we saw Leonora Hagner engaged in the work of 
Mr. Wentz's family, was between the 25th day of April and 
the 14th day of September, 1819. It is our opinion, that Leo- 
nora Hagner was at that time, about 15 years of age. 

JOHN GREEN, 
THOMAS C. ASHBROOK, 
HENRY WOOD, 
JOHN DAYMON. 

Mrs. Hagner's tears , of which Dr. Janeway and 
Mr. Henry boast so much, might have had their ori- 
gin in feelings which were harrowed up by the idea 
of appearing before men to give in her reluctant tes- 
timony; but if that was the case, if she was capable of 
being melted by the common or uncommon incidents 
of life, if mere deposition or oath or unpleasant allu- 
sions could have moved her mind or excited a blush 
or tear, she must in general keep such a careful guard 
Bpon her feelings as to render this act of tenderness 
or delicacy an exception to her whole life; that she 
was not this delicate person, that she possessed none 
of those feelings which are ascribed to her, her whole 
life, as well as the following letter, may be consid- 
ered a proof. 

Philadelphia, February \7th, 1820. 

Rev. Db. Broadhead, 

Sir, — It will no doubt create some surprise in your mind, at 
receiving a letter or communication from me, with whom you 
have no acquaintance, particularly not of your spiritual charge; 
but this surprise will cease, when you are made acquainted 
with the cause, which is no less than in some measure, vindica- 
ting myself and the characters of my innocent offspring — and 
as far as in me lies, defending myself from the base aspersions 



207 



and malevolent unfounded falsehood, and misrepresentations 
of a person, who in common gratitude, should have been the 
last to vilify me or mine. It is sir, also at the request of some 
of your own members, I now address you, who having a full 
right to judge properly of the circumstances, deem their own 
feelings wounded, that scandal so base should be handed un- 
contradicted through their society. I have been credibly 
informed from the authority just named, as also others of equal 
respectability, not in your communion, that in addition to a 
Variety of the most flagrant lies, Mrs. Hagner, one of your com- 
municants, has industriously circulated the report that I had 
purchased certain notes, or note of hand of her son's drawing, 
with the view of injuring her, through him; or at least of injuring 
him. A greater lie than this, no enemy of mine has undertaken 
to propagate, since the wicked report of misconduct by me, 
towards a single female, which the biased and misguided ses- 
sion of the Second Presbyterian church, after a sham trial, 
confirmed. Though T hope, if God spares me life to refute the 
charge, and expose them before a higher judicatory. The truth 
of the present is, that I did lend William Hagner fifty dollars, 
cash in hand, to release him from the sheriff, and took his note 
at sixty days, which note for want of the money lent him, I 
paid to Mr. Bray; expecting he would pay it according to pro- 
mise. The result was, that the note was protested for non-pay- 
ment, and myself brought in dilemma in consequence of Mr. 
Bray being unpaid. Suit was entered by Mr. Bray, in the regu- 
lar manner, and on this, Mrs. Hagner who, perhaps for wick- 
edness, under the mask of religion, has not her equal, founded 
the scandal in question; but this created no surprise in me, as 
on a late unfortunate money occurrence, in which I had be- 
come accountable for her son, I was by her complimented 
with the epithet, dirty son of a bitch, and twice threatened to 
have my brains knocked out by her gentle ladyship; together, 
with compliments much of the same sort to my wife; remark- 
ing at the same time, that I was a perjured villain, and all of us 
a dirty, perjured set; meaning I suppose, the respectable cha- 
racters who appeared on the burlesque trial at Arch-street 
church; but unfortunately for this monument of iniquity, I had 
not taken an oath one way or the other in the case. My rea- 
son for thus exposing this disgrace to the christian name, is that 
you, who no doubt have been deceived by her specious pre- 



208 



tences to sanctity, may be on your guard, and likewise suspend 
judgment till facts shall appear, sufficient to justify a correct 
decision. With sentiments of esteem, I have the pleasure of 
subscribing myself, 

Respectfully yours, fyc. 

. SAMUEL WENTZ. 

Massey Evans's deposition is a mere hearsay 
story, unworthy a moment's attention, excepting that 
part of it which relates to the conversation which she 
says was held in the house; of this part Dr. Jane- 
way has taken a most unmanly notice. He has, in 
his argument, assumed the position as granted, and 
argued from it as if Mr. Wentz was really guilty; 
yet when called to hear proof of the falsehood of the 
story, he shrinks from the examination. This house, 
as we have already stated, is built as every other 
house is, without any particular conveniences for 
passing from one upper chamber to the other. Mr. 
Wentz having urged the session in vain to examine 
into this charge, and pay some attention to the plan 
of the house, w T as compelled to have recourse to dis- 
interested persons, who after examining the house 
alluded to by Massey Evans, furnished Mr. Wentz 
with the following certificate. 

Philadelphia, June 20th, 1820. 
We the subscribers, at the request of Mr. Samuel Wentz 5 
have visited, and carefully examined the house in Garden- 
street, alluded to in the testimony, delivered by Massey Evans* 
before the session of the Second Presbyterian church, on his 
trial before said body, founded on a charge of immoral conduct 
with a certain Mary Albertson. On reading the testimony, 
which runs thus: " He then took us up into the third story, or 
" garret, and told us to see how he had made them rooms; he 



209 



fi had made them so, that the boys and girls could get up in 
" the night and go together, unbeknown to any body, that no 
" body would know it," and carefully examining the premises, 
it fully and evidently appears, that a gross misstatement must 
have been made. The house is built as houses on small lots 
generally are: that is to say, a stairway in the centre of the 
building; at the head of each landing place there is a door open- 
ing into the front room, and one on the opposite side to the back 
room, making them entirely separate; no other door or doors 
of communication passing from one room or rooms to the 
other. The cause of the misstatement, we do not know; but, 
from a careful investigation and information of some facts, we 
should certainly give no credit to that part of said Massey 
Evans's testimony, 

REESE MORRIS, 
CONRAD WILE, 
THOMAS WALLACE, 
JOHN M. SMITH, 
JOB WILSON, 
PETER CHRISTIAN, 
C. W. SCHREINER, 
GEORGE GOODMAN, 
E. HOWELL, 
HENRY WE L BANK, 
MUSGROVE WILLIS, 
ADAM WEAVER, 
HENRY WOOD, 
THOMAS C. ASHBROOK. 
I do hereby certify, that there is no extra communication be- 
tween the rooms of the house, above mentioned, more than 
what is common in such houses. 

WM. RUFF. 

It appears evident that the delegates from the ses- 
sion were determined not to be foiled in their at- 
tempts. When the circumstances of an action were 
not to be distorted into shape suitable to their pur- 
poses, surmises were resorted to; and when the in= 

ferences from general conduct would be against 

s 2 



210 



them, a witness is found to assert some previous 
conversation of one of the parties. Dr. Janeway 
sought to prove an interest on the part of Mr. Wentz 
in this affair, by showing that he and his wife were 
concerned in paying for the board of Mary Albert- 
son; and Mrs. Hagner, with her usual spirit of ac- 
commodation, has said something, out of which a 
proof is to be adduced. But as Mrs. Kochler is the 
person with whom Mary boarded, in whose house 
she was confined, a deposition from her, would be 
worth all the surmises that Mrs. Hagner could make, 
or inferences that Dr. Janeway could draw. 

Philadelphia, October 23d, 1819. 
The testimony of Maria Kochler, in the case of Samuel 
Wentz, on a charge of improper conduct, to be laid before the 
session of the Second Presbyterian church of this city. As I 
have been informed by Mr. Wentz that he has been charged 
with paying or defraying the expenses of a certain Mary Al- 
bertson, who was confined in child birth at my house, on the 
14th day of last September. These are to testify, that I never 
saw, or knew of Mr. Wentz paying or delivering any money 
or monies, or other articles for said Mary Albertson's use, in 
any way or manner whatsoever. The said Mary has uniform- 
ly paid and honourably discharged the expenses attending her 
situation herself; nor have I any reason, or cause, to believe 
Mr. Wentz did or was any way privy to discharging the same; 
and to my certain knowledge, Mr. Wentz never came, or 
called at my house, (as above named) till late in the evening of 
the 18th of last September, when he came in company with 
Mr. John Green and John H. Gartley, with whom he went 
into the room, where said Mary was confined, accompanied by 
myself, when she voluntarily made a declaration, accompanied 
With a certificate, signed in my presence by herself, and the 
gentlemen before stated. Mr. Wentz put no questions what- 
ever at the time, the interrogatories were by Mr. Green, and 
Mr. .^^^^. f 1 think it also proper to state, that I was present 



211 



at the birth of said Mary Albertson's child, and heard her soon 
afterwards declare, that its father was Isaac Burdock, and no 
other. This statement I am induced to make in writing-, as I 
am informed by Mr. Wentz, his examination before the church 
will take place on the 6th day of November next, when it will 
be impossible for me to be present, as my removal to a con- 
siderable distance from the city will preclude it. 

MARIA KOCHLER. 

City of Philadelphia, ss. 

On the 23d day of October, A. D. 1319, before me, Peter 
Christian, one of the Aldermen of said city, came the above 
named Maria Kochler, who being- duly affirmed according- to 
law, doth declare and say, that the above statement is just and 
true. 

MARIA KOCHLER. 

Sworn, and subscribed before me, ) 
the day and year aforefaid. £ 

PETER CHRISTIAN, Alderman*. 

Dr. Janeway has indulged himself in a freedom 
of remark on Mrs. Wentz evidence, that no circum- 
stance of the case will authorise, and which no man 
of feeling could give utterance to. He affects to be- 
lieve (believe it he never could) that a respect for 
domestic relations could induce Mrs. Wentz to con- 
nive at the conduct of her husband; that the good- 
ness of her disposition, would lead her to extend 
comfort and ease to the miserable object of 4t his 
illicit commerce." Yes, a woman of unimpeached 
character, a christian of irreproachable conduct, would 
forget the rights in which nature and the marriage 
vow endowed her, could discard the feelings which 
education and a long course of virtuous life had 
created and strengthened, to become the priestess at 
the shrine of polluted passion; to hold the torch at 



212 



the altar where were sacrificed her own and her hus- 
band's honour. Let us not pause; this is but the 
threshold of the assertion; that Mrs. Wentz saw all, 
and assisted in all the crime and infamy of her hus- 
band, though nature sickens at the thought, and 
none but a being prepared to imitate or vindicate the 
beastly design, would venture the charge, is the 
lightest cast in this picture of infamy. The man, 
who could assert that, would and did exceed this 
monstrous thought, and we find that when the dele= 
gate had made Mrs. Wentz the pander of her own 
mfamy, when he had endeavoured to sink her below 
the level of humanity, he unblushingiy adds the cli- 
max to his unparalleled proceedings, by fixing on 
her the unqualified charge of perjury, by asserting 
that her whole relation was but " a made-up story " 
though given under the solemnity of an oath. 

Dr. Janeway declares that Mrs. Wentz's testi- 
mony is not admissible, and directs the presbytery 
not to consider it at all, and says he will pay no re- 
gard to it; yet we find him as indefatigable to prove 
Mrs. Wentz guilty of perjury as he is to fix the 
crime of adultery on her husband. He charges her 
with deviation from the right line, with fabrications, 
and false statements, and then, that the temerity of 
his charge might not shock the court, he affects to 
palliate the crime, and even stands forth the vindi- 
cator of that frailty, which, under the trial of ma- 
ternal affection, would yield even to perjury! This 
palliation, the speaker knew was an unnecessary in- 
sult, and totally uninvited by the course of argument. 



218 



It proves, however, that every circumstance was 
seized by the delegates to effect their purpose; that 
feeling, propriety, affection and honour were poor 
barriers to their unprincipled course. 

The remarks in the introduction on the conduct of 
the session towards Mrs. Wentz, should be borne in 
mind. Let this charge of Dr. Janeway be added, 
and where was the sense of propriety which guided 
the session, when it granted a certificate of regular 
standing to Mrs. Wentz. Of the truth of which, 
the following note from the Rev. Mr. Patterson will 
be ample proof. 

I hereby certify, that Mrs. Sarah Wentz was taken into the 
communion of the First Presbyterian church in the Northern 
Liberties, on certificate from the Second Presbyterian church 
in this city, bearing date the 11th of May, 1820. 

JAMES PATTERSON, Pastor. 

June Mth t 1820. 

It is a rule of all courts, that when a superior tri- 
bunal has reversed the decision of an inferior court 
which had pronounced an accused person guilty, the 
person is to be considered in point of privilege in 
every respect, as free from the crime of which he 
had been charged as if the first judicatory had de- 
clared him innocent; this is founded on the best 
policy of government, and can never be destroyed, 
until the less shall be the greater power. The ses- 
sion however, in accordance with all their previous 
conduct, finding themselves defeated in this intention 
of confirming their decision in the presbytery, as- 



214 

sume a privilege wholly unknown to the Presbyterian 
church, and actually refused to comply with the 
opinion of the presbytery. Mr. Wentz after having 
the judgment of the session reversed by the superior 
court, and of course being placed in the same right 
of privileges which he enjoyed before the accusation, 
applied to the session for a certificate in the usual 
form, in order to associate himself with another 
church; this, though the session was bound to per- 
form it by every rule of Presbyterianism, it refused to 
do; it indeed granted a certificate, but their feelings 
were not satisfied without again renewing the pain- 
ful subject, which had created so much trouble to 
all concerned. This disgraceful charge was there- 
lore mentioned in the certificate; and the spirit of an 
old law brought in as authority for such an act. 
It is confidently asserted, the session of the Second 
Presbyterian church to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing, that no such law exists, nor can ever exist, 
while the admirable system of church government is 
adhered to, which is now used by the Presbyterian 
church. The session therefore after outraging com- 
mon sense and overstepping the usual rules of order, 
has dared to set the presbytery at defiance, by refu- 
sing a compliance with its decision. 

This is to certify, that Mr. Samuel Wentz was a member of 
the Second Presbyterian church in Philadelphia, in full commu- 
nion, and in good and regular standing". And he is now, at his 
own request, dismissed to join any sister church that may be 
willing to receive him. But the session feel bound by a sense 
of duty, and in compliance with the spirit of a rule adopted by 
the assembly relative to certificates, to state, that ia November 



215 



last, he was, in consequence of a charge brought against him, 
of which, in the judgment of the session he was convicted, sus- 
pended from the privileges of the church, and that on his appeal, 
the presbytery of Philadelphia reversed the judgment of the ses- 
sion. 

By order of the session. 
(Signed) ROBERT SMITH, Clerk. 

Philadelphia, llth May, 1820. 

Astonishment has been excited that such a mass 
of evidence of so suspicious a character could be 
collected without being in danger of immediate de- 
tection. Had Mr. Wentz been favoured with coun- 
cil as in the presbytery, this strange association of 
surmises and deductions would never have appeared. 
Mr. Wentz when he found that in his own defence 
he must ask some questions, confesses himself totally 
unacquainted with the method he should pursue; 
supposing the session as anxious for truth as himself, 
he naturally concluded that the superior acquire- 
ments of some of its members would affect more 
than any exertions he could make in his own behalf; 
under these impressions, we find him neglecting the 
privileges which he possessed of cross examining the 
witnesses, and sitting quietly down while the ses- 
sion were exercising all the prerogatives they enjoyed 
in the very spirit of a prosecuting attorney. 

In the exercise of their judicial power, we view 
the members oi this august body sitting with a 
gravity which might be mistaken for the coolness 
- of deliberation. We see them examining wit- 
nesses with that apparent astonishment which might 
be expeeted from the detail of circumstances of which 



216 



they were totally ignorant. But we find that this 
coolness was but the settled determination of pre- 
judging minds; and that astonishment, if real, must 
have sprung from their own wonder that there was 
none to detect the fallacy of their proceedings — lor 
there was none. Mr. Wentz had always supposed, 
that the ruling elders of his own church,, were men 
capable of judging with justice, any case which 
might properly come before them: and when he 
found them leagued to mar all that renders life dear, 
and snatch from him the comforts which might 
sweeten death, he awoke from his dream of security, 
but awoke too late to save himself from the machi- 
nations of his enemies. He looked about for that 
support which the afflicted may ask of a brother, 
but met persecution. He sought for relief and aid 
from those, whom choice and adoption had made 
his fathers, and they gave him a serpent. In such 
a conclave as this, could Mr. Wentz, totally unac- 
quainted with the art of sifting evidence and detect- 
ing well-conned and well-glossed falsehood? could he 
foe expected to examine witnesses and entrap them in 
their contradiction? He was totally unprepared for 
such a task; for the man who is the least conversant 
with this vexatious but necessary duty in a trial, 
must perceive that a few well applied questions 
must have confounded the whole of the evidence 
brought by the prosecutors, and saved the session 
the disgrace of pronouncing a sentence of condem- 
nation on such miserable fabrications. But Mr. 
Wentz confided too long; he looked to the bench of 



217 

elders, for an exhibition of truth; he found them 
seeking only to condemn,- they were alienating him 
from his adopted home, tearing his name from a 
covenant, sealed with the holiest impress; they were 
pronouncing over him the anathema which separated 
him from the enjoyment of those scenes, where he 
had garnered up his heart; they were niching away 
the comfort which a meaner malice had left, and he 
was driven into silence, while he looked around 
upon the walls which enclosed the men who thus 
took from him all but his u integrity to heaven," and 
saw that it should be a house of prayer, in the bit- 
terness of his soul he exclaimed, 4t Ye have made it 
a den of thieves." Thus we find that the confidence 
which Mr. Wentz placed in the session was made 
an instrument against him, and he suffered for trust- 
ing to those to whom his friendship and connexion 
taught him to look upon as friends. 'Tis too fre- 
quently thus in life. The artful and malicious var- 
nish up their fabrications with all the skill which 
falsehood requires, fortify with favourable circum- 
stances, and present them wfyen vigilance is lulled, 
so that candour almost gives credence; while the up- 
right man, who trusts to the integrity of his con- 
duct for a safeguard from slander and a shield from 
persecution, is often destroyed. 

In the course of the proceedings, Dr. Janeway 
takes occasion to inquire what Mr. Gartley says, 
but shrinks from the answer. It has been previously 
asserted that all of Mr. Gartley's testimony was not 
inserted in the minutes of the session. The publish- 

T 



218 

er in order to place the matter in a fair light, ad- 
dressed a note to Mr. Gartley, requesting an expla- 
nation, to which the following answer was received. 

Philadelphia, June 27th, 1820. 

Sir, 

In answer to your note of this inst. I have to state, that after 
very carefully examining the copy of testimony delivered by me, 
before the Second Presbyterian church, in Mr. Wentz's case, I 
find the same to be correct as far as it goes: but a material 
part is left out, viz. I was closely questioned by the session 
respecting the name of Burdock, and informed them I knew 
but one person in this city of that name, and at the same time 
directed them to a highly respectable gentleman, who married 
into a family of the name. On mentioning this, several of the 
session professed a knowledge of him. I was greatly astonish- 
ed at finding this part left out, as they were very particular in 
their inquiries, and noted down what I have just stated. The 
cause of the omission I cannot account for; but in reading the 
speeches of Mr. Henry and Doctor Jane way, I find they have 
made an excellent handle of it — It is there stated, " None of the 
witnesses ever heard of the name." Here is a palpable want of 
veracity, as you will see by what I have already stated, as is 
also the declaration of no question being put to me by the ses- 
sion. Two members of that body are men whom I have a 
right to know well, and I believe cannot too highly esteem: 
they, no doubt, if questioned, will state as above, being, in my 
opinion, incapable of prevarication or falsehood. It is certainly 
singular that the omission has occurred, but we have some- 
times to lament over spiritual wickedness in high places. 

Respectfully Your's 

JOHN H. GARTLEY. 

19, Cherry-street. 

We have now closed our observations on the tes- 
timony, and shall submit the trial to the candid pe* 
rusal of the public. The injury which Mr. Wentz 
has received from this long course of systematised 
persecution can only be redressed by a restoration 



219 



to the good opinion of those whose worth renders 
their opinions of value, and who, from a want of a 
sufficient acquaintance with the merits of the case, 
and the proceedings of his prosecutors, may have 
withdrawn from him that confidence and respect 
which he has laboured for years to deserve. 

Enough has been said, it is believed, to convince 
scepticism itself of the unjustifiable conduct of the 
session and its delegates in the Presbytery. They, 
themselves, no doubt, though dead to every gene- 
rous feeling which laments an unintentional injury, 
regret that they have pursued their vengeance so 
far; the consequences are likely to recoil upon 
themselves; they are therefore zealous to suppress 
the report of their own proceedings lest their mo- 
tives should become too apparent. They did not 
pause upon the destruction of happiness which their 
procedure must insure; nor do they express a single 
compunction at the effects which their unfeeling pro- 
secution has caused : their delicacy is selfish; they 
glory in the publicity which must be given to the 
charges adduced, but dread to have their names con- 
nected with the miserable tools of their malevolence. 
Thus while they pile with exultation the faggots 
round the victim they have impaled, they shrink 
from the heat of their sacrificial flame. 

But they will recoil too late. The world will not 
be deceived by the forms of prescribed ceremony; 
profession of desire for the appearance of innocence 
will not be believed, when it is seen that the proofs 
of it are absolutely neglected. Men of reason will 



220 



fix their eyes upon the members of the session with 
astonishment; they will scarcely believe that conve- 
ned in so sacred a name as they were, men could show 
themselves so devoid of the spirit they should pro- 
fess, or so totally ignorant of the duties they were 
to exercise. The errors of the session and the evils 
which flowed from its unjust decision might have 
been rectified by a contrary course of conduct on the 
part of the delegates from it in the Presbytery, with- 
out waiting for a formal decision of that body. But 
vanity now came in to assist the passions already ii* 
operation; they had pronounced Mr. Wentz guilty; 
they, therefore, determined to confirm their sen- 
tence by misleading the Presbytery. In this attempt 
the whole powers of their mind were brought into 
requisition; the energies which had been deputed in 
the session were exercised in their own sphere in 
this body. The art which had before been employed 
In the choice of witnesses was now fully exercised 
In supporting their pitiful testimony. The lay dele- 
gate from the session is indeed so completely mould- 
ed to the views of the master hand, and of such tri- 
iling importance in the prosecution, (as his vote was 
necessarily lost by his being an agent of the session) 
that no farther comment will be made on his imbe- 
cile exertions, lest he should acquire an importance in 
this respect to which his abilities do not entitle him. 

When Dr. Janeway's exertions to confirm the 
judgment of the session is considered; when it is 
recollected with what industry he laboured to this 
end, and bent all the energies of his mind to this 



22* 

purpose, it is naturally inquired, what good could 
be effected by such a course, or in whose name 
the sacrifice of a brother's birth right was to be 
made. Religion did not ask the victim they were 
about to immolate. Religion, pure as its holy origin, 
weeps at the iniquity which hypocrisy perpetrates 
in her name; she turns with terror from the scourge, 
the rack and the wheel. She supports the wretch 
who writhes beneath the accumulated outrages of 
inquisitorial or sessional persecution, and points his 
fainting heart to that God who 

*' Permits this seeming evil for some latent good." 

This man who stood so firmly against Mr. Wentz 
was himself a husband and father; he knew all the 
enjoyments of domestic peace, all the pride of pater- 
nal respect, and knew that without an acknowledged 
claim on the respect of society, all this peace 
must now be lost in the strife of conflicting feelings, 
and this respect degenerate into contempt; yet he 
could bend the powers of a cultivated mind to snatch 
this cup of earthly comfort from the hand in which 
virtue placed it, and present in its stead the bitter 
draught which the unfeeling mingle for the weak, 
the wavering and the frail. Was he ignorant of what 
must inevitably flow from the success of his cease- 
less exertions? or did he exult in anticipation at the 
thought that when the fury of his vengeance had 
past, when the storm of this persecution was hushed, 
he could go forth and view the wreck which his ex- 
ertions had left, that he could stand amidst the ruin 
©f departed comfort, could see the desolation of fa- 



222 



inily peace, could see the confiding wife stabbed m 
the object of her love, and smile upon the ruin which 
his powers had formed? He certainly could not be 
ignorant of the effect which must follow the awful 
result of his exertions; and when he considered the 
influence which his standing would probably give 
him in the prosecution of a private individual, he 
must have been stimulated in his efforts by an influ- 
ence which the feeling man could neither detect nor 
possess. 

The powers* of this delegate were strong and ac- 
tive; they were urged to theis extent, and though 
affected to be veiled in coolness and deliberation, it 
was not difficult to discern a powerful and a sweeping 
flame, which, when once excited, disdained the bar- 
riers which the holiness of his vocation might op- 
pose. He was not, as on a former occasion, to sit 
above the storm he had created, and view the pros- 
tration of joy and comfort which his influence had 
effected: he must mingle in this fray; he mus-t not 
only be the power to create, but the spirit to direct 
the blast. He seems to have risen above the com- 
mon calculation of feeling or judgment; he did not 
pause upon the wreck of feeling which his destroy- 
ing course was making. He had given his mind to 
darker and deeper passions; he had turned aside 
from the feelings of humanity, and gone forth to 
desolate and waste. His pleading and arguments 
were not to convince or to save; they were the ebulli- 
tions of a passion which had wrapt itself in the tem- 
pest, to overthrow and blast, and the prostrate wretch 



223 



who looked for the coming of peace when the cloud 
first arose, now saw, while his upturned eyes sur- 
veyed the desolations of its direful march, " that 
the Lord was not in the whirlwind." 

In looking back upon the course pursued by the 
prosecution, it will scarcely be admitted that the ob- 
servations upon the proceedings are unwarranted, or 
that they are unjustifiably severe. It is easy for the 
cold and unfeeling to preach forbearance and endu- 
rance — but the mild spirit of Christianity itself will 
sometimes " resist evil," even beyond the missiles of 
argument; though cast down, the spirit of man may- 
rise and forgive the blow: — but trodden on, the zuorm 
will turn. The right of complaining can not be ta- 
ken from the injured until the power has gone; and 
when pains have been taken to forestall public opinion 
and withdraw deserved respect, duty requires an ef- 
fort to prevent the evil. Invectives have been ut- 
tered against the subject of this trial, which were lit- 
tle calculated to soften the asperities which his per- 
secution might excite; and he feels that while his en- 
emies had no cause for their unhallowed persecution, 
he may indulge in the expression of those feelings 
which their malice have excited; he does not affect 
to need an apology; he believes that " to recriminate 
is just," yet could he believe that a single expression 
which he may have authorised, would undeservedly 
wound the feelings of one of those who have exhaust- 
ed all their ingenuity to destroy him, he would wish 
that sentence expunged from the book. But under 
such varied forms of persecution as he has suffered 



224 



at their hands, in view of such unblushing impu- 
dence as they have betrayed in their efforts to destroy 
him, he believes that silence might be construed in- 
to a submission to their desires, or at best would in- 
vite a renewal of their agressions. 

While those who are leagued against him, either 
from a corrupt disposition of their own, or a servile 
attachment to their superiors, were teaching him to 
" bear all things and endure all things,'' that the set- 
tled malignancy of the most depraved passions could 
inflict, he waited till the vials of their wrath should 
be spent, before he would turn upon his pursuers. 
He has now exhibited but truths against those who 
have exhausted invention for falsehood to effect him, 
and he has exhibited only those truths which his vin- 
dication required. 

His enemies may start back at the picture of de- 
formity which their own conduct exhibits; they may 
shrink from the visitation of their malice upon their 
own heads: but the man who for months has been the 
mark of their unhallowed combinations, believes, on 
a review of his exertions to vindicate his aspersed 
character, that though he has been compelled to ex- 
pose the detestible motives and mean subterfuges of 
his persecutors, u yet in all this, he has sinned not, 
neither charged them foolishly." 

Erratum — Page 126, 12th line from the bottom, for All 
read At. 

H 113 8 2«HT 



